Hoja»   Riciiard  Sfcyn-a  Parker 


To   C.    N.    FAY,    Dr. 

Cambridge  38,  Mass. 

For  book  "Labor  in  Politics" 

Copies  i       Bindg<jlotl?t  $2.00        JCo.apliii.3ii.. 


Sent  by         BM      PP  Date  Jan    2/21 

Order,  suggestion,  or  attention  of  (Kindly    refer    to 

letter  of   Mr.   Fay   and  Asaooiatos.) 


ACO 


583 


"LABOR     IN     POLITICS" 


CAMBRIDGE,  Nov.  1,  1920. 
Dear  Sir: 

Believing  that  the  time  at  last  has  come  for  searching,  temperate 
and  patriotic  discussion  of  American  Organized  Labor,  the  undersigned 
(a  retired  public  service  and  manufacturing  corporation  executive  of 
large  experience  in  one  of  our  greatest  cities)  has  written,  and  with  a 
small  group  of  friends  is  financing,  as  a  matter  of  public  interest,  the 
printing  and  distribution  of  a  book  of  carefully  verified  fact  and  official 
utterance  on  this  very  important  subject,  called  "Labor  in  Politics"; 
a  summary  of  the  gist  of  which  will  accompany  this  note. 

We  are  taking  the  unusual  and  rather  expensive  method  of  direct 
distribution  by  mail  order  instead.of  through  the  book  trade,  partly  be- 
cause the  book  could  not  includ*  the  action  of  the  June  Conventions 
of  the  two  great  political  parties  and  that  of  the  Federation  of  Labor, 
and  yet  be  finished  in  time  for  publishers'  1920  production  and  distri- 
bution schedules;  but  still  more  because  some  of  the  larger  publishers 
frankly  admit  that  they  do  not  care  to  risk  the  hostility  of  the  trades  . 
unions  in  whose  hands  they  largely  find  themselves  by  bringing  out 
under  their  imprint  a  book  critical  of  union  aims  and  methods.  In 
this  they  parallel  what  Mr.  McCone  of  the  Buffalo  Commercial  alleged 
as  to  the  daily  papers,  before  the  U.  S.  Senate,  not  many  months  ago. 

Both  to  save  time,  therefore,  and  because  we  do  not  propose  that  • 
a  hundred  thousand  union  printers  shall  privately  determine  what  a 
hundred  million  Americans  shall  or  shall  not  read,  we  address  ourselves 


directly  in  this  way  to  what  we  hope  will  be  a  widening  list  of  men  who 
believe  in  a  free  press. 

We  courteously  urge  you  to  subscribe  for  the  book,  and  to  order  sent 
to  yourself  and  friends  as  many  copies  as  you  incline  to  help  us  distribute; 
which  last  we  will  mail  post-paid  to  such  addresses  as  you  may  give, 
sending  with  each  book  a  like  request  to  order  other  copies  to  be  sent  to 
friends,  with  request  to  order  in  turn  for  others,  on  the  endless  chain  plan. 
In  this  way  a  large  distribution  may  perhaps  be  accomplished  in  time  to 
be  of  use  in  forming  opinion  during  the  two  or  three  crucial  years  for 
industry,  that  lie  immediately  before  us.  200  copies  of  the  book  will 
be  sent  free  to  the  press  writers  of  the  leading  papers  throughout  the 
country,  in  hope  of  provoking  wide  discussion,  if  not  blocked  by  the 
unions.  (Please  return  copy  sent  you  at  our  expense,  if  not  wanted.) 

We  invite  your  order  at  estimated  cost  of  printing  and  distri- 
bution in  this  way,  post-paid;  namely  $2.00  per  copy. 

Please  reply  to  the  undersigned,  No.  2  Willard  Court,  Cambridge  38, 
Mass. 

For  the  Publishing  Syndicate, 

CHARLES  NORMAN  FAY. 


Gist  of  the  Book 

It  consists  in  carefully  verified  analyses  of  the  official  reports  of  the 
Federation  of  Labor,  and  the  Dept.  of  Commerce  and  Labor;  also 
citations  of  known  facts,  showing  in  detail  that: 

Organized  Labor  is  a  great,  money-making  business,  for  its  leaders; 
with  income  this  year  of  over  50  million  dollars,  at  least  four  fifths  of 
which  goes  to  run  the  machine,  in  salaries  and  expenses  of  somewhere 
near  150,000  professionals. 

Its  main  activity  is  getting  members  and  collecting  their  dues;  and 
its  success  depends  on  stirring  up  hostility  between  employers  and 
employes,  and  making  the  latter  believe  that  paying  union  dues  fattens 
their  pay-envelopes.  It  has  succeeded  in  unionizing  about  four  and  a 
half  million  out  of  forty-eight  million  men  listed  by  the  Selective  Draft 
Boards  in  1917,  who  pay  probably  more  than  twelve  dollars  each 
annually. 

While  all  wages  have  risen  with  the  increased  productivity  of  labor 
in  modern  industry  faster  than  the  cost  of  living  has  risen,  the  wages  of 
non-union  labor,  ten  times  as  numerous  as  union-labor,  and  befriended 
by  nothing  except  the  law  of  supply  and  demand,  have  risen  to  three  and 
one  half  or  four  times  the  rates  of  1880,  for  the  most  part  without  strikes, 
and  entirely  without  payment  of  dues;  while  union-labor,  after  sacrific- 
ing since  1880  over  400  million  dollars  in  dues  and  over  800  million  dollars 
in  lost  wages  during  some  70,000  strikes  and  lockouts  recorded  by  the 
Dept.  of  Labor,  has  had  to  be  discontent  with  average  wages  of  less 
than  two  and  one  half  times  rates  of  1880. 

The  reason  for  this  failure  of  union-labor  to  share  as  fully  as  non- 
union labor  in  the  increased  dividend  of  labor  under  modern  conditions 
is  found  in  the  fact  that  union  labor,  obedient  to  union  rules,  has  in- 
tentionally held  back  from  increasing  its  own  production.  As  the  latter 


is  all  that  pays  union  wages,  they  have  logically  and  necessarily  suffered 
in  comparison  with  the  gain  registered  by  free  labor. 

The  country  can  hope  for  no  let-up  in  "Social  Unrest,"  and  labor- 
trouble,  so  long  as  150,000  professional  agitators  draw  $50,000,000  a 
year  for  creating  it.  Nothing  will  stop  it  till  the  workers  grow  wise  to 
the  game  played  by  the  leaders  with  their  good  money  at  their  expense; 
and  perhaps  realize  that  if  the  latter  would  change  antagonism  to 
cooperation  with  employers  for  maximum  production,  they  themselves 
would  overtake  and  surpass  free  labor  in  daily  reward. 

The  immediate  object  of  this  book  is  however  to  meet  the  "Don't 
work — just  vote  for  your  wages"  policy  of  Organized  Labor  by  inform- 
ing the  country  of  its  nature  and  purpose,  as  well  as  of  the  foregoing 
facts;  that  we  may  not  make  the  mistake  of  backing  Gompers  at  the 
polls,  but  on  the  other  hand  may  consider  regulation  of  the  Labor 
Trust  like  the  other  Trusts,  with  maintenance  of  the  Open  Shop  and 
individual  constitutional  right. 

Its  main  theme  is  decentralization  of  labor-control,  free  operation 
of  economic  law,  and  non-interference  of  government,  in  the  public 
interest  as  in  the  interest  of  labor. 


L  LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

OR 

CLASS  versus  COUNTRY 

Considerations  for  American 
Voters 


BY 
CHARLES  NORMAN  FAY 


Copyright,  1920 
By  CHARLES  NORMAN  FAT 


Third  Edition 


MWVERSITY  OF  SOUTHERN  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

Dedication  to  Press  Writers  of  America     .  vii 

I     Gist  of  this  Book I 

II     Issues  and  Point  of  View 7 

III  A.  F.  L.  Growth  and  Income      ....  17 

IV  A.  F.  L.  Constitution  and  Appeal    ...  22 
V     Right  to  Organize,  etc.     The  Gary  Case   .  27 

VI     "  Labor  not  a  Commodity  of  Commerce  "  .  41 

VII     Centralized  Control 47 

VIII     Failure  to  Benefit  Workers 58 

IX     Inefficiency.     Gospel  of  Sloth      ....  65 

X     Irresponsibility 75 

XI      Political  Evolution  and  Intention      ...  79 
XII     Social  Justice.    Moral  Basis  of  Capitalism. 

Law  of  Supply  and  Demand    ....  90 

XIII  Mischief  of  Centralization 104 

XIV  Centralized  Arbitration  Fails 112 

XV     Labor  Leadership.    Mr.  Gompers     .     .     .  126 

XVI     The  Railway  Brotherhoods 133 

XVII     Autocracy  of  Capital 136 

XVIII     "  Democratization  of  Industry."     "  Recog- 
nition of  the  Union."    The  Closed  Shop  144 
XIX     Profit  Sharing.    Ford  and  Others       .     .     .  155 
XX     Gompers  vs.  Lenine  and  Debs     .     .     .     .  164 
XXI     Demagogy  and  Bureaucracy.      League  of 

Nations  Labor  Bureau 167 

[v] 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

XXII     Carroll  Wright    Statistics    of   Strikes    and 

Lockouts 178 

XXIII  Collective  Bargaining.     Pros  and  Cons     .  181 

XXIV  Coercion.   Violence.     Picketing  .     .     .     .  189 
XXV     Union     Propaganda.      Schools,     Colleges, 

Government  Departments 192 

XXVI     Profiteering 197 

XXVII     Eight-Hour  and  Shorter  Day 202 

XXVIII     Successful  Cooperation 207 

XXIX     Summary  of  Facts  and  Conclusions  .     .      .  213 

XXX     Remedies.     Popular   Action.      "S.  O.  S."  218 

XXXI     Remedies,  Legislative 227 

XXXII     Remedies,  Administrative 233 

XXXIII  Remedies,  Employers'.     Time  Contracts. 

Strike  Insurance 238 

XXXIV  Remedies  Within  the  Unions     ....  245 
XXXV     Valedictory.      Least  Government.     Least 

Taxation 251 

Postscript.        Republican,     Democratic, 

A.  F.  L.  Conventions 261 

Appendix.     Open    Letter    to   Samuel 

Gompers 269 


[vi] 


DEDICATION 

TO   THE 

PRESS  WRITERS  OF  AMERICA 

WILL  you  permit  me,  gentlemen  of  the  press,  to 
take  the  liberty  of  dedicating  to  you  these  considera- 
tions of  a  retired  looker-on  upon  certainly  one  of  the 
most  interesting,  perhaps  one  of  the  most  vital, 
factors  in  American  industry  and  politics,  in  the  hope 
that  your  attention  may  be  attracted  at  least  to  the 
dedication  itself,  and  thence  to  the  substance  of  the 
book. 

In  order  that  you  may  know  that  I  do  not  write 
too  ignorantly,  may  I  say  that  for  many  years  prior 
to  1893  I  was  a  public  service  corporation  executive 
in  Chicago,  successively  the  working  head  of  the 
telephone,  gas,  and  one  of  the  electric  companies; 
and  afterwards  as  head  of  a  private  manufacturing 
company  was  vice  president  for  Illinois  of  the  Na- 
tional Association  of  Manufacturers,  and  chairman 
of  its  Strike  Insurance  Committee.  I  was  also  one 
of  the  committee  on  western  litigations  conducted  by 
the  Anti-Boycott  Association,  —  from  1900  to  1904, 
I  think.  In  these  various  capacities  I  was  for  some 
time  much  in  contact  with  Organized  Labor  and  be- 
came a  student  of  its  activities,  and  an  occasional 
writer  on  them  since  my  retirement  from  active 
business.  I  have  now  no  personal  interest  to  bias  my 
judgment,  though  of  course  it  has  been  deeply  in- 
fluenced by  personal  experiences. 

I  would  courteously  urge  you,  as  keen  and  public- 
spirited  observers  of  events,  to  study  the  facts  and 

Cvii] 


DEDICATION 

conclusions  I  present,  and  to  give  them  such  dis- 
cussion and  publicity  as  their  importance  seems  to 
you  to  deserve.  During  the  past  three  years  I  have 
offered  their  substance  in  various  forms  to  journals 
and  magazines  which  had  occasionally  printed  my 
offerings,  but  always  in  vain,  until  I  realized  that 
editors,  though  otherwise  receptive,  do  not  like  to 
print  what  one  might  call  unfashionable  stuff.  In 
other  words,  the  press,  like  the  politicians,  tends  to 
reflect  rather  than  to  form  public  opinion. 

For  instance,  the  editor  of  a  well-known  weekly, 
in  refusing  an  "Open  Letter  to  Samuel  Gompers" 
comparing  Gompers'  militarism  and  autocracy  to 
German  Kaiserism,  wrote  me  in  December,  1918, 
as  follows: 

"  I  have  read  it  with  interest,  but  I  feel  sure  that  this  is 
not  the  time  to  print  it;  certainly  not  in  the  ...  So  far  as 
the  ...  is  concerned,  it  is  a  believer  in  the  principles  un- 
derlying the  trades-union  movement.  The  trades-unions 
have  been  guilty  of  grave  errors,  and  sometimes  of  grave 
crimes;  but  so  have  the  capitalists.  One  reason  why  the 
.  .  .  movement  is  of  value  just  now,  is  because  it  is  unitedly, 
solidly,  and  uncompromisingly  against  Bolshevism,  Socialism. 
...  At  this  juncture  we  ought  to  cooperate  with  Mr. 
Gompers  as  far  as  possible  in  his  work." 

And  the  editor  of  an  equally  prominent  monthly 
wrote  during  the  same  month  as  follows : 

"  I  have  been  much  interested  in  your  piece ;  but  I  doubt 
whether  it  would  serve  a  useful  purpose  to  sound  at  this 
time  the  note  of  conservative  individualism.  The  center  of 
gravity  in  these  matters  has  been  shifting  a  good  deal  during 
the  last  few  years,  and  trades-union  methods  seem  less  ex- 
treme than  they  once  did." 

Neither  editor  denied  the  truth  of  the  open  letter, 
but  both  simply  preferred  to  swallow  Mr.  Gompers 

[  viii  ] 


DEDICATION 

whole.  He  had  them  quite  hypnotized  for  the 
moment. 

Seeing  that  the  minds  of  such  thoughtful  and 
patriotic  men  as  these  editors,  and  of  such  eminent 
citizens  as,  for  instance,  the  prominent  committee 
members  of  the  National  Civic  Federation,  and 
moreover  of  a  very  large  number  of  less  conspicuous 
men  and  women  quite  as  important  and  sincere  as 
myself,  run  so  directly  counter  to  truth  and  right  as 
I  see  them  in  this  matter,  ought  I  not  in  ordinary 
modesty  and  common  sense  to  "  go  'way  back  and 
sit  down,"  without  lifting  puny  pen  to  assert  them? 
Perhaps,  as  a  matter  of  modesty  and  good  sense, 
yes;  but  as  one  of  conviction  and  plain  duty,  it  seems 
to  me  I  ought,  if  I  can,  to  bring  truth  and  right  as 
I  see  them  to  trial  by  jury  of  wide  public  opinion, 
engaging  the  best  counsel,  yourselves,  gentlemen  of 
the  press,  to  present  the  case.  Nobody  but  myself 
can  suffer  from  an  adverse  verdict  on  my  whimsies. 
Hence  this  book. 

Meantime  I  would  not  appear  to  you  superficial 
in  presenting  Organized  Labor  as  a  prime  cause 
rather  than  a  by-product  of  existing  Social  Unrest. 
There  may,  indeed,  be  a  more  fundamental  and 
burning  sense  of  wrong  done  by  capital  to  labor  than 
I  am  aware  of,  which  must  sometime,  as  agitators 
say,  burst  out  like  a  lava  flood  to  devastate  the  coun- 
try; but  I  do  not  believe  it.  I  was  never  able  to  find 
a  general  temper  of  revolt  among  my  own  employees, 
with  hundreds  of  whom  I  was  for  long  years  fairly 
well  acquainted,  nor  was  such  temper  noted  by  some 
two  thousand  employers  with  whom  I  corresponded 
on  this  very  subject  some  years  ago.  We  found 
neither  elemental  social  injustice  nor  consciousness 
thereof  among  the  majority  of  our  working  people; 
that  is,  on  large  scale  or  in  many  instances.  Most  of 

[ix] 


DEDICATION 

them  recognized  that  they  were  fairly  well  treated, 
and  though  some  of  us,  myself  included,  had  had  labor 
trouble,  we  could  in  every  case  put  our  finger  on  the 
particular  agitator,  usually  a  paid  organizer  from 
some  labor  union  that  had  carefully  stirred  up  or 
created  the  specific  grievance  that  developed  "  un- 


rest." 


I  would  not  deny  the  world-wide  and  age-old  fact 
that  brains  fare  better  than  muscle  in  this  world,  and 
I  will  grant  for  the  sake  of  the  argument  the  fre- 
quent drastic  claim  that  two  per  cent  of  the  popula- 
tion of  the  United  States  own  sixty  per  cent  of  the 
wealth;  but  if  so,  I  submit  that  the  two  per  cent  own 
the  sixty  per  cent  because  they  largely  organized  its 
creation,  and  alone  are  capable  of  its  accumulation 
and  use.  I  further  submit  that  the  majority  of 
Americans,  the  large  majority,  are  perfectly  well 
aware  of  that  fact,  and  accept  its  social  justice,  at 
least  as  applied  to  men  whom  they  personally  know. 
Though  it  is  perhaps  human  nature  to  envy  an  abler 
and  thriftier  man,  and  even  grudge  him  a  little  his 
larger  share  of  this  world's  goods,  it  is  also  human 
nature,  larger  and  nobler  and  common  to  most  of 
us,  honestly  and  fairly  to  admit  that  he  deserves  his 
success  and  respect  his  right  to  it.  I  am  glad  to  be- 
lieve that  generosity  rather  than  envy  lies  at  the 
bottom  of  the  American  conception  of  Social  Justice 
today  as  in  the  time  of  our  fathers,  who  embodied 
the  rights  of  private  property  and  individual  lib- 
erty in  the  constitutional  guarantees  handed  down 
to  us. 

This  book  is  therefore  frankly  a  defense  of  capital 
against  the  organized  attack  of  labor;  first,  because 
of  my  convictions  as  to  social  justice,  but  last,  and  all 
the  time,  because  labor  does  not  in  practice  accu- 
mulate or  use  capital.  Yet  accumulation  and  use  of 

[x] 


DEDICATION 

capital  is  the  vital  thing,  far  more  important  to 
society,  especially  to  labor,  than  its  distribution. 

Please  do  not,  therefore,  gentlemen,  class  me  as 
a  reactionary,  or  as  more  "  reactionary  than  the 
multiplication  table,"  to  borrow  Governor  Coolidge's 
felicitous  phrase;  but  rather  call  me  a  pragmatist, 
if  I  understand  the  use  of  William  James'  famous 
expression,  a  believer  in  men  and  methods  that  stand 
the  test  of  time,  and  actually  help  the  world.  I  wish 
at  least  to  be  absolutely  honest  and  fair  in  what  I 
say  and  try  to  support  by  proof.  I  am  well  aware 
that  extreme  severity  in  judgment  and  expression  al- 
ways weakens  the  force  of  conclusions  reached  and 
motives  imputed,  as  to  men  and  acts.  But  a  lie  is  a 
lie;  selfish  appeal  is  just  that  and  nothing  else;  utter 
uselessness  and  broad  failure  cannot  be  praised  as 
idealities;  repudiation  of  contract,  breach  of  law,  and 
defense  of  crime  cannot  be  disguised  as  virtues; 
minimizing  production  is  the  most  mischievous  stu- 
pidity, class  politics  is  betrayal  of  democracy. 

I  cannot,  therefore,  conscientiously  regard  labor 
leadership  that  openly  stands  for  all  of  these  things 
as  other  than  thoroughly  dishonest  and  discredited. 
While  I  can  understand  that  the  average  unthinking 
man  or  woman  may  easily  be  led  by  sympathy  for 
the  poor  to  mistake  the  utter  selfishness  of  trades- 
unionism  for  humanitarianism,  I  confess  it  is  hard 
to  admit  that  informed  and  patriotic  editors  should 
helplessly  look  to  Gompers  to  save  us  from  Hay- 
wood  or  Lenine,  to  the  Federation  or  the  Brother- 
hoods to  supplant  the  I.  W.  W.  or  the  Soviet.  What 
difference  does  it  make  to  the  American  who  has 
worked  hard  and  saved  something  whether  the 
Soviet  takes  all  his  capital  or  Organized  Labor 
takes  all  his  income  ?  He  starves  just  the  same  either 
way.  And  what  does  the  supposedly  great,  free 

[xi] 


DEDICATION 

American  people  gain,  except  contempt,  by  feebly 
balancing  one  scare  against  another,  by  meekly  ac- 
cepting lesser  instead  of  greater  tyranny? 

The  letters  quoted  above  date  back  more  than  a 
year.  Today,  after  a  thousand  intervening  strikes 
of  all  sorts  and  sizes,  —  notably,  from  the  editorial 
point  of  view,  the  printer's  strike  that  stopped  the 
weekly  above  mentioned  and  other  New  York  maga- 
zines last  fall,  —  what  with  the  Adamson  Law,  the 
Plumb  Plan,  the  insistence  of  Labor  on  the  right  to 
strike,  even  "  against  the  public  safety,"  as  Gov- 
ernor Coolidge  would  say,  and  finally  with  the  open 
entry  of  Messrs.  Gompers  et  al.  into  the  Congres- 
sional Campaign  of  1920  —  the  wind  of  public 
opinion  seems  to  be  shifting  at  last,  to  blow  against 
Organized  Labor,  here  and  there.  With  it  the 
politicians  and  the  editors  seem  to  be  shifting  too. 

If  so,  Messrs,  the  Press  Writers,  and  if  the  facts 
and  conclusions  here  set  down  seem  to  you  accurate 
and  just,  I  would  courteously  beg  you  to  accept  this 
dedication,  and  make  such  use  as  you  can  of  this 
material.  I  hope  too  that  it  will  appeal  to  the  public 
direct,  although  addressed  thus  particularly  to  your- 
selves as  their  intermediary,  because  few  men  care 
to  wade  through  solemn  screeds  like  this. 

I  am,  by  the  way,  not  unmindful  of  the  fact  that 
some  of  you  are  members  of  a  union  of  your  craft 
affiliated  with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor; 
and  that  the  unions  in  the  printing  trade  are  accused 
of  more  or  less  solidly  muzzling  the  press  of  your 
country.  But  I  appeal  to  you  nevertheless  with  con- 
fidence, as  good  Americans  first  and  good  union  men 
afterwards,  to  vindicate  the  honor  of  your  great 
profession,  the  freedom  of  the  press,  and  the  patriot- 
ism of  your  union,  by  making  known  the  truth  in 
this  serious  matter. 

[xii] 


FOREWORD  TO  THIRD  EDITION 
To  THE  WOMEN   AND  THE   LEGION 

BEFORE  passing  on  to  my  subject,  let  me  first  appeal 
to  the  new  voters  of  1920,  especially  the  women 
and  the  young  men  of  the  American  Legion,  men 
and  women  keenly  alive  to  their  new  powers  and 
responsibilities,  to  study  and  value,  severally  and  for 
themselves,  the  facts  presented  here. 

I  put  the  women  first,  because  ( i )  it  is  the  family 
at  home  that  suffers  first  and  most  from  loss  of 
wages  and  privation  entailed  by  strikes  —  oftentimes 
called  by  Labor  autocrats  who  themselves  suffer  not 
a  cent's  worth  meantime;  also  because  (2)  it  is  the 
wife  and  children  of  the  nonunion  man  against  whom 
is  turned  the  meanest  and  deadliest  weapon  of  trades- 
unionism, —  socially ostracism) among  neighbors,  the 
odious  word  "  scab^-shotrtea  at  women  and  children 
in  the  streets  and  at  schools;  and  finally,  because 
(3)  in  all  history  the  women,  once  roused,  have 
shown  themselves  more  heroically  and  sometimes 
more  bitterly  partisan  than  their  husbands. 

It  is  therefore  fit  and  inevitable  that  the  women 
should  have  their  say  in  matters  so  nearly  concern- 
ing the  family;  and  it  is  particularly  desirable  that 
their  conscience  and  intelligence  should  be  wide 
awake  now,  at  the  beginning  of  their  political  power. 
It  is  vital  to  the  family  that  women  as  voters  should 

[  xiii  ] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

stand  for  sound  economics  and  unselfish  trades- 
unionism.  It  is  the  family  that  most  needs  the  pro- 
tection of  the  courts,  and  gains  most  by  freedom  of 
the  law  of  supply  and  demand.  No  duty  rests  more 
squarely  upon  the  new  women-voters  than  the  de- 
fence of  the  family;  first  by  their  own  right  thinking, 
and  afterwards  by  its  enactment  into  law. 

I  address  myself  also  in  the  same  spirit  to  the  new 
voters  of  the  American  Legion,  because  they  are  just 
now  particularly  exposed  to  the  temptation,  dangled 
before  them  by  politicians  who  are  fishing  for  their 
votes,  to  put  class  before  country  in  the  matter  of 
bonus-legislation;  to  their  own  sure  demoralization 
and  the  injury  of  free  government.  Inasmuch  as 
this  book  more  particularly  concerns  Organized 
Labor,  however,  the  affairs  of  the  Legion  are 
touched  upon  thus  briefly  here,  only  because  its  mem- 
bers cannot  consistently  condemn  class  politics,  as  I 
urge  them  to  do,  on  the  part  of  the  Federation  of 
Labor  or  the  Farmers'  Non-Partisan  League,  while 
themselves  pushing  their  own  class  interest.  The 
splendid  principles  for  which  the  Legion  stands  will 
doubtless  in  themselves  suffice  to  govern  the  votes 
of  its  members,  as  occasion  to  cast  them  arises;  so 
it  is  in  confident  reliance  on  those  principles  that  I 
urge  the  Legion's  new  voters  to  vote  as  they  shot, 
for  liberty  and  the  common  good  —  not  for  the  class 
advantage  of  any  group,  least  of  all  their  own. 

Let  the  men  of  the  Legion  beware  always  of  the 
pension  agents;  of  the  politicians,  who  are  always 
willing  to  plunder  the  public  treasury  in  order  to 
curry  favor  with  a  few  men,  and  buy  a  few  votes  for 
themselves.  Let  not  these  grafters  repeat  the  pen- 
sion grabs  that  have  continuously,  since  the  close  of 
the  Civil  War,  as  the  long  lines  of  veterans  in  the 
Annual  Parade  of  the  Grand  Army  grew  short  and 

[xiv] 


FOREWORD   TO   THIRD   EDITION 

shorter  still,  called  ever  for  more  and  more  millions ; 
until  today,  alas,  but  a  few  old  men  remain  alive 
to  account  for  a  colossal  pension  roll,  that  always 
grows  and  never  dies.  Let  the  country  found  no 
more  huge  fortunes  of  pension  agents  at  Washington. 


LABOR  IN  POLITICS 

OR 

CLASS  versus  COUNTRY 

CHAPTER   I 

GIST   OF   THIS    BOOK 

As  I  am  addressing  myself  in  the  first  instance  to 
you,  gentlemen  of  the  press,  I  will  follow  your 
fashion  of  giving  at  the  outset  the  gist  of  my  story, 
hoping  that  it  may  interest  you  enough  to  carry  you 
on  through  the  mass  of  detail  that  must  follow,  to 
support  my  contentions.  Here  it  is,  in  brief: 

There  can  be  no  hope  of  reasonable  relief  from 
"Labor  Unrest"  so  long  as  four  or  five  million 
laborers  can  be  fooled  into  paying  fifty  million  dol- 
lars a  year  to  a  hundred  thousand  professional  agi- 
tators that  call  themselves  by  the  sounding  title  of 
"  Organized  Labor,"  only  to  bedevil  their  own  em- 
ployers, cripple  their  own  jobs,  cut  down  their  own 
output,  and  minimize  their  own  earning  power. 
Now  these  mischief-makers  are  openly  going  into 
our  politics. 

Mr.  Gompers  last  February  served  notice  on  the 
country,  which  the  June  Convention  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  at  Montreal  has  just  confirmed, 
of  "  nonpartisan "  entry  of  Organized  Labor  into 
the  coming  political  campaign,  with  but  a  single  pur- 
pose in  view,  namely,  the  class  advantage  of  Organ- 

[i] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

ized  Labor  itself.  This  action  is  taken  because  the 
national  and  state  administrations  have  for  the  past 
two  years,  in  marked  contrast  with  past  subserviency 
to  labor,  taken  notice  of  growing  popular  revolt 
against  the  principles,  aims,  and  methods  of  the 
trades-unions.  In  so  doing,  Mr.  Gompers  has  put 
both  the  great  political  parties  between  the  devil  of 
the  labor  vote  and  the  deep  sea  of  uncertainty  as 
to  public  opinion;  which  last  certainly  ran  for  years 
with  the  general  current  of  the  stream  of  hostility 
to  Wall  Street  and  the  Trusts  against  Capital,  and 
in  favor  of  Organized  Labor  as  humanitarian  in  pur- 
pose and  effect  —  but  of  late  seems  to  grow  wisely 
jealous  of  Labor  too,  as  merely  another  trust. 

The  result  so  far  is,  that  the  Republican  Party 
platform  adopted  at  Chicago  largely  sidesteps  the 
labor  issue,  though  Governor  Coolidge  was  named 
for  the  Vice  Presidency  because  he  stood  up  against 
the  Boston  police  strike;  while  the  Democrats,  at 
San  Francisco,  though  not  quite  so  definitely,  rather 
sidestep  too.  The  general  question  of  class  entry 
into  politics  for  class  advantage  is  meantime  a  very 
broad  and  vital  one  in  our  democracy,  that  will  last 
in  all  probability  over  several  campaigns.  The  pol- 
iticians will  not  dare  take  a  stand  upon  it,  for 
obvious  if  not  very  magnificent  reasons.  The  peo- 
ple will  have  to  make  up  their  own  minds,  as  so 
often  before  on  serious  public  questions,  and  show 
the  politicians  unmistakably  the  way  the  wind  of 
opinion  blows,  before  the  party  weather  vanes  will 
swing  the  legislative  mill  sails  into  the  breeze  and 
the  latter  will  begin  to  turn.  This  little  book  is 
intended  to  help  in  the  formation  of  public  opinion 
by  condensation  of  the  facts  into  convenient  form, 
and  by  their  presentation  in  not  too  ponderous 
diction.  Here  they  are  as  I  see  them: 

[2] 


GIST  OF  THIS  BOOK 

There  has  grown  up  among  us,  ostensibly  for 
self-protection  against  capitalism  and  exploitation, 
huge  organization  of  labor;  with  enormous  income, 
—  nearly  fifty  million  dollars  per  annum,  —  contrib- 
uted by  a  membership  of  over  four  millions,  perhaps 
half  of  them  voters.  Four  fifths  of  this  great  in- 
come goes  for  salaries  and  expenses  of  a  labor 
bureaucracy  numbering  perhaps  one  hundred  to  one 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand  men  and  women;  whose 
main  business  is  enlarging  the  organization,  getting 
and  keeping  members  and  collecting  their  dues,  and 
whose  secondary  business  is  distributing  union  bene- 
fits and  managing  occasional  strikes.  The  excel- 
lent livelihood  and  the  personal  careers  of  this 
bureaucracy  depend  upon  its  success  in  creating 
"industrial  unrest";  and  on  the  strength  of  it  re- 
cruiting ever  vaster  armies  of  working  men  and 
women,  centralized  and  massed  as  a  fighting  force 
against  Capital  —  carrying  the  impression  and  in- 
deed the  reality  of  formidable  power,  industrial 
and  political. 

From  the  standpoint  of  the  able  and  ambitious 
men  who  have  for  forty  years  built  up  this  great 
machine,  it  is  a  vast  success.  It  has  attained  the 
great  size  and  income  aforesaid,  has  stirred  up 
discontent  everywhere,  has  caused  some  seventy 
thousand  recorded  strikes,  has  cut  down  the  pro- 
ductivity of  our  labor  fully  one  third,  has  largely 
contributed  to  double  our  cost  of  living,  and  has 
perhaps  permanently  injected  a  class  issue  into  our 
politics. 

By  virtue  of  colossal  losses  already  inflicted  on 
industry  and  the  community,  and  by  threat  of  worse 
yet  to  come,  the  great  labor  leaders,  such  as  Messrs. 
Gompers,  the  late  John  Mitchell,  W.  B.  Wilson, 
Stone,  and  others,  have  made  themselves  well  off, 

[3] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

powerful,  and  world-famous  personages.  Natu- 
rally, they  are  pretty  sure  to  go  right  on  running 
their  huge  mill,  grinding  out  its  daily  grist  of  strikes 
and  dollars.  It  may  be,  too,  that  they  sincerely  be- 
lieve in  their  own  mission. 

Then  there  is  a  smaller  group  among  us,  of 
savers  and  investors,  collectively  known  as  Capital 
but  unorganized;  ^organized,  on  the  contrary,  by 
war-aftermath,  strained  by  present  and  doubtful  of 
future  conditions,  political  and  economical,  it  has 
as  yet  formed  no  solid  front  in  its  own  defense 
against  labor,  government,  or  public  opinion.  As 
the  English  statesman,  Winston  Churchill,  said  last 
December:  "  Capitalism  does  nothing  to  establish  its 
own  moral  basis,  though  abundantly  capable  of  de- 
fense. The  press  is  afraid  of  it;  the  politicians  are 
afraid  of  it;  and  its  case  goes  by  default."  So  in 
this  country,  too,  Capitalism,  half  dazed,  says  little 
in  its  own  justification. 

Finally,  there  are  the  other  nongrouped  one  hun- 
dred millions  of  us,  —  the  people  generally.  Most 
of  them  have  been  in  favor  of  the  so-called  Labor 
Movement  until  just  now,  as  humanitarian. 

In  fact,  however,  that  movement,  which  is  my 
subject  here,  is  far  from  humanitarian.  It  is  based 
on  the  lying  premise  of  capitalistic  oppression  and 
class  struggle;  it  appeals  to  the  worthless  motives 
of  selfishness  and  sloth;  it  formulates  the  dishonest 
purposes  of  monopoly  and  coercion;  it  uses  the  law- 
less means  of  combination  in  restraint  of  trade,  and 
violation  of  constitutional  liberty  and  right  More- 
over it  utterly  fails  to  benefit  its  votaries  —  its  rank 
and  file.  It  is  an  increasing  injury  and  menace  to  all 
of  us,  in  cost  of  living,  industry,  and  finance.  It 
saps  pur  national  virility,  poisons  our  politics,  and 
prostitutes  democracy  to  class  service.  We  now  at 

[4] 


GIST   OF  THIS   BOOK 

last  suddenly  recognize  its  great  centralized  mili- 
tant organization  as  a  menace  to  free  institutions, 
whether  considered  as  striking  or  voting  machinery. 
Thus  far,  apparently,  it  has  benefited  no  one  in  any 
large  way  except  its  leaders,  especially  Mr.  Gom- 
pers  and  his  confreres;  though  they  have  benefited 
enormously,  and  dream  of  greater  benefit  still  — 
while  their  principle  of  entire  irresponsibility  to 
their  country  remains  unchanged. 

We  Americans  have  always  been  jealous  of  cen- 
tralized power,  the  logical  remedy  for  which  is 
decentralization.  There  is,  too,  a  natural  law  of 
centrifugal  force  that  tends  to  limit  the  value  of 
centralized  control;  a  tendency  to  disintegration  and 
decay  that  makes  overgrowth  break  down  under  its 
own  weight  and  weakness.  As  the  German  proverb 
puts  it,  "  Things  are  so  ordained  that  the  trees  do  not 
grow  into  the  heavens."  The  increasing  failure  of 
colossal  centralization  to  help  labor  is  therefore  per- 
fectly natural  and  to  be  expected.  It  is  along  the 
line  of  decentralization  that  the  American  voter  is 
likely  to  urge  the  labor  movement  now  and  here- 
after. The  "  right  to  organize,  to  strike,  and  to 
bargain  collectively"  —  all  three  of  them  forms  of 
centralized  power,  —  what  these  rights  are  or  ought 
to  be,  and  what  Mr.  Gompers  would  make  of  them, 
I  shall  try  to  show;  but  I  think  that  most  Americans 
already  agree  with  Governor  Coolidge,  that  u  there 
is  no  right  to  strike  against  the  public  safety,  by  any- 
body, anywhere,  any  time." 

I  hope  to  show  such  Americans  that  it  is  time  to 
meet  not  only  the  criminal  menace  of  Labor  with 
the  law,  but  to  face  its  political  menace  with  the 
ballot,  in  coming  and  future  campaigns,  until  the 
bogy  of  class  politics  is  laid,  for  the  time  anyway: 

Also  that  we  should  divorce  labor  and  politics,  and 

[5] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

set  free  the  impartial  laws  of  supply  and  demand  to 
determine  social  justice: 

Also,  as  practical  men  of  sense  and  for  the  com- 
mon good,  that  we  should  cut  loose  the  labor  troubles 
of  every  employer  from  those  of  all  the  others,  and 
should  not  assist  Organized  Labor's  largely  success- 
ful program  of  tying  all  industry  and  labor  in  one 
inextricable  tangle,  of  centralized  quarreling,  bar- 
gaining, mediation,  and  arbitration,  compulsory  or 
otherwise;  but  should  on  the  contrary  set  each  em- 
ployer free,  and  each  laborer,  according  to  the  guar- 
antees of  the  Constitution,  to  prosecute  his  lawful 
business,  under  maintenance  of  law  and  the  public 
peace;  that  we  should  shun  collectivism;  should  bar 
the  general  and  sympathetic  strike  and  the  boycott; 
and  finally  that  we  should  deny  the  right  to  strike 
against  the  public  welfare,  as  Governor  Coolidge 
says,  by  anybody,  anywhere,  any  time. 

Nevertheless,  I  hold  that  we  should  accomplish 
these  things  by  law  only  in  so  far  as  it  proves  to  be 
impossible  to  accomplish  them  by  voluntary  change 
of  heart  and  purpose  of  Organized  Labor;  for  every 
good  American  recognizes  the  great  and  benevolent 
possibilities  underlying  the  trades-union  principle  of 
brotherhood  and  cooperation. 

The  education  of  Labor  itself  is  a  consummation 
devoutly  to  be  wished  and  seriously  undertaken  by 
every  lover  of  his  country.  Better  ethics,  better 
economics,  and  better  industry  would  pay  working- 
men  far  better  than  the  present  cult  of  war  against 
the  capitalist  oppressor;  there  can  be  no  doubt  of 
that. 

Decentralization,  Least  Government,  Education, 
—  these  are  the  preachments  of  this  book. 


[6] 


CHAPTER   II 

THE    ISSUES   AND   THE    POINT   OF    VIEW 

I  HAVE  chosen  "Class  versus  Country"  as  the  sub- 
title for  this  book  partly  because  it  is  short,  allitera- 
tive, and  "carries  a  punch,"  but  more  because  it 
exactly  states  an  important  question  that  confronts 
this  country  now  and  in  future. 

President  Gompers,  who  seems  to  constitute  Labor 
—  as  President  Wilson  constituted  the  Democratic 
Party  —  is  openly  out  to  control  Congress  and  the 
presidential  election,  and  incidentally  to  plunder  the 
nation  for  the  benefit  of  labor. 

It  is  not  the  first  time.  In  1916,  just  before  the 
last  presidential  campaign,  he  took,  control  of  the 
President  and  Congress,  passed  the  Adamson  Law, 
and  actually  did  plunder  the  people  for  the  benefit 
of  the  railway  workers.  We  all  stood  for  it,  too; 
partly  because  we  were  too  busy  with  the  Kaiser  just 
then  to  bother  with  Gompers,  and  partly  because 
the  latter  caught  us  off  guard  with  his  coup  d'etat. 

Nevertheless  a  shock  of  surprise  and  a  wave  of 
wrath  swept  over  the  country,  to  be  followed  by 
others,  till  the  Seattle  strike,  the  Steel,  Boston  Police, 
Longshore,  Coal,  and  a  hundred  other  strikes,  with 
the  Plumb  (or  plunder)  Plan,  backed  up  by  talk  of  a 
general  railway  strike,  one  after  the  other  brought 
conviction  to  many  million  free  Americans  that, 
having  done  with  the  Kaiser,  the  next  autocrat  in  line 
for  the  clippers  is  Mr.  Gompers.  Ole  Hanson  and 
Governor  Coolidge  started  the  revolt;  Senator  Cum- 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

mins,  Congressman  Blanton,  and  others,  are  follow- 
ing it  up ;  the  President,  as  usual  playing  both  ends 
against  the  middle,  slips  behind  the  camouflage  of  his 
Industrial  Conferences;  while  Gompers,  driven  to 
bay,  foams  at  the  mouth,  and  threatens  this  poor 
little  nation  and  its  Congressmen  with  the  wrath  of 
Organized  Labor. 

Well,  it  is  an  excellent  thing  to  wash  our  family 
linen  clean  and  hang  it  out  to  dry.  Clean  washing 
is  mainly  a  matter  of  plenty  of  hot  water,  strong 
soap,  vigorous  handling,  good  eyesight,  and  thorough 
exposure  to  the  light.  The  American  people  is  ready 
to  turn  Organized  Labor  inside  out,  look  hard  at  it, 
and  do  the  needful  scrubbing  uncompromisingly. 
Something  not  so  very  different  from  the  Bolshevist 
pitch  has  been  sticking  to  our  shirt. 

When  I  was  a  boy  in  Vermont  the  old  farmers  used 
to  say,  "  Work  hard  and  save  your  money,  and  by 
and  by  a  hired  man  will  do  the  work  for  you."  But 
times  have  changed.  I  am  living  again  in  a  New 
England  university  town  —  Cambridge  —  and  find 
to  my  surprise  an  almost  Bolshevist  cult  among  my 
perfectly  honest  and  Christian  neighbors.  None  of 
them  ever  created  an  industry,  risked  a  dollar  in 
active  production,  or  found  a  job  of  work  for  even  a 
few  laboring  men;  yet  they  have  very  decided  though 
not  very  clear  views  as  to  how  Rockefeller  and  other 
greedy  capitalists  who  do  all  these  things  ought  to 
democratize  industry;  ought  to  save  and  risk  all  the 
capital,  pay  all  or  nearly  all  the  profit  to  their  em- 
ployees, and  moreover  ought  to  take  their  orders 
whenever  they  choose  to  give  them. 

These  same  neighbors,  many  of  them,  do  not  seem 
to  democratize  their  own  domestic  industry.  They 
keep  servants  and  incline  to»  say  to  them,  each  to 
his  man  or  her  maid,  "  If  you  take  my  wages,  you 

[8] 


ISSUES  AND   POINT   OF   VIEW 

must  also  take  my  orders"  —  and  they  are  quite 
right.  But  they  rather  remind  me  of  certain  Phari- 
sees denounced  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  who 
"  say,  and  do  not.  For  they  bind  great  burdens, 
and  grievous  to  be  borne,  and  lay  them  on  men's 
shoulders;  but  they  themselves  will  not  move  them 
with  one  of  their  fingers."  Perhaps  in  the  aureoled 
enthusiasm  of  "  the  new  order"  (whatever  that  may 
mean)  they  will  label  me  as  reactionary,  undemo- 
cratic. But  let  me  deprecate  your  doing  the  same, 
gentlemen  of  the  press;  for  I  am  seriously  asking 
you  to  look  at  facts  and  human  nature  as  they  are, 
not  putting  too  great  a  strain  on  either. 

To  begin  and  end  with,  I  believe  in  good  hard 
honest  work,  in  manly  pride  in  doing  one's  level  best 
up  to  the  point  of  healthy  fatigue;  not  only  for  the 
pay  envelope  —  which  will  always  be  the  fullest  — 
but  for  the  health  and  happiness  of  the  worker,  and 
the  stimulus  that  his  energy  gives  to  the  whole  com- 
munity. Wise  men  of  all  ages  from  Solomon  down, 
and  the  common  sense  of  the  common  people  every- 
where and  always,  will  agree  to  this  creed,  though 
most  men  do  not  live  entirely  up  to  it.  It  is  a  truism, 
hardly  needing  iteration. 

Of  course,  I  despise  and  denounce  the  lazy,  use- 
less, contemptible  song  sung  by  Mr.  Gompers  (see 
A.  F.  L.  Report  1920,  inside  cover), 

"  Whether  you  work  by  the  piece  or  work  by  the  day, 
Decreasing  the  hours  increases  the  pay," 

and  his  dishonest  gospel  always  to  demand  "  more, 
more,  more"  for  less,  less,  less  labor.  I  despise  the 
mule's  trick  of  balking  —  of  doing  the  least  possible 
work,  under  threat  to  do  nothing  at  all  if  asked  to 
do  more.  No  more  demoralizing  poison  could  be 
instilled  into  the  mind  of  man  than  the  above,  which 

[9] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

in  the  short  space  of  forty  years  has  transformed  our 
virile,  cheerful  American  craftsmen  by  hundreds  of 
thousands  into  flabby,  grouchy  shirkers,  always  quar- 
reling with  their  own  bread  and  butter,  and  getting 
less  of  it. 

To  me  the  finer,  more  human,  more  American 
gospel  is  that  of  the  biggest  day's  work  for  the 
biggest  day's  pay  within  my  powers.  If  some  other 
fellow  can  do  a  bigger  day's  work  than  I  can,  then 
let  him  also  get  so  much  bigger  pay.  If  he  can  out- 
strip me,  I  would  not  be  so  small  as  to  hold  him  back. 
If,  moreover,  he  can  pay  for  and  coordinate  the 
work  of  a  thousand  men  like  or  better  than  himself, 
and  get  far  more  than  a  thousandfold  the  result,  let 
him  go  ahead,  and  God  bless  him.  Great  be  his  re- 
ward for  doing  with  them  all  what  they  cannot  do 
by  themselves.  He  cannot  lead  the  crowd  without 
drawing  them  after  him,  at  least  part  way. 

Let  me  reassert  my  point  of  view,  that  of  a  prag- 
matist,  as  I  said  before ;  a  man  who  believes  in  things 
that  work  and  endure,  who  accepts  broad  and  uni- 
versal social  and  economic  phenomena  that  persist 
through  all  human  history  as  ipso  facto  based  upon 
natural  law  and  human  need,  satisfying  both.  For 
when  they  do  not  do  so,  they  do  not  last!  I  would 
apply  the  same  test  to  the  phenomena  of  economics 
and  politics  as  to  hydraulics  or  mechanics.  If  things 
spring  up  and  endure,  they  must  accord  with  the  law 
of  life.  If  they  'fail,  it  is  because  that  law  is  too 
strong  for  them;  they  are  against  nature.  One  of 
these  things  that  must  conform  to  law  in  order  to 
endure  is  Capital. 

There  is  nothing  in  history  more  certain  than  this, 
that  where  life  and  property  are  most  secure,  where 
those  who  sow  can  also  reap  and  keep,  there  general 
prosperity  is  greatest,  poverty  is  least,  and  standards 

[10] 


ISSUES  AND   POINT  OF  VIEW 

of  living  are  highest.  There  those  who  work  harder, 
save  faster,  risk  more,  rightly  gain  and  keep  more; 
while  those  who  not  only  work  and  save  hardest, 
but  who  also  create  work  for  others  besides  them- 
selves, rightly  gain  most  of  all.  Service  rendered,  in 
the  way  of  work  done,  directly  or  indirectly,  is  the 
natural  measure  of  reward,  and  has  been  throughout 
all  history,  in  accord  with  natural  law. 

So  long,  then,  as  we  Americans  conform  to  natural 
law  as  established  by  history,  just  so  long  those  who 
do  most  in  this  world  will  fare  the  best.  If  our  coun- 
try is  prosperous  and  the  average  man  is  well  off, 
the  exceptional  man  will  be  better  off.  There  never 
has  been  great  general  prosperity  without  large 
private  fortunes,  from  the  dawn  of  history  down  to 
date.  They  appear  and  disappear  with  the  excep- 
tional men  who  create  them,  —  for  this  world's 
goods  in  themselves  are  perishable,  —  but  while  they 
last  the  great  modern  industrial  fortunes,  unlike  the 
hoarded  gold  and  gems  of  oriental  despots,  are  far 
more  useful  to  the  laborers  than  to  their  owners, 
paying  to  the  former  far  more  year  by  year  in  wages 
than  to  the  latter  in  dividends.  The  pestilence-and- 
famine-free  security  of  our  humblest  toilers  in  Amer- 
ica compared,  say,  with  the  precariousness  of  savage 
life  in  Darkest  Africa,  or  even  in  Bolshevist  Russia, 
is  built  upon  the  firm  foundation  of  our  railways, 
factories,  and  banks. 

Another  human  phenomenon,  even  more  constant 
under  peaceful  conditions  than  creation  and  accumu- 
lation of  capital,  is  propagation  of  the  race  and 
abundance  of  labor.  The  poor  ye  have  always  with 
you,  saith  Holy  Writ.  Statesmen  and  economists 
need  seldom  worry  about  race  suicide:  there  will 
always  be  plenty  or  labor,  in  times  of  peace  at  least. 
What  they  ought  to  worry  about,  as  patriots,  work- 

[n] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

ing  for  the  common  good,  is  abundance  of  capital. 
They  should  stand  for  that  economical  and  political 
system  which  has  actually  best  created  and  conserved 
capital,  and  endured  the  test  of  time  and  place. 
Granted  abundance  of  capital,  there  is  always  abun- 
dance of,  and  for,  labor.  Without  abundance  of 
capital,  there  is  seldom  abundance  of  anything 
human,  except  want. 

A  great  change  seems  to  me  long  overdue  in 
American  public  opinion,  and  is  perhaps  under  way 
already.  Of  late  years  millions  of  us  have  refused 
to  accept  the  phenomenon  —  universal  in  all  times 
and  countries  —  of  wealth  for  the  few,  livelihood  for 
the  many,  and  extreme  poverty  for  again  a  few,  as 
what  we  call  "  Social  Justice."  It  is  true  that  before 
the  day  of  the  modern  commercial  or  industrial 
fortune  —  the  just  reward  of  service  rendered  — 
great  private  wealth  was  often  the  odious  result  of 
political  or  military  spoliation,  taken  from  the  many 
by  taxation  or  force  and  pocketed  by  the  few;  and 
that  even  in  America  we  bear  against  the  earned 
fortune  of  the  Rockefellers  a  traditional  grudge  that 
relates  back  to  the  stolen  fortunes  of  the  Caesars. 
Although  nowhere  should  the  enormous  usefulness 
of  capitalism  be  so  well  understood  as  in  this  for- 
tunate land,  many  thousands  of  good  Americans  have 
not  outgrown  the  hatred  and  envy  of  wealth  as 
"  privilege,"  inherited  from  centuries  of  its  associa- 
tion with  autocracy  and  robbery.  The  "  moral  basis 
of  capitalism,"  its  beneficence,  its  democracy,  its 
social  justice,  has  not  yet  been  established  in  our 
public  opinion.  Yet  it  is  time  we  realized  that  capi- 
talism is  an  invaluable  by-product  of  political  and 
economic  liberty  that  should  be  at  home  and  wel- 
come in  America.  Common  sense  will  admit  that 
democracy  should  not  insist  on  uniform  poverty,  and 

[12] 


ISSUES  AND   POINT   OF   VIEW 

sense  of  justice  will  confirm  Theodore  Roosevelt's 
expression  of  the  square  deal  for  every  man,  namely: 
"Equality  of  opportunity?  —  Yes!  Equality  of  re- 
ward?—  No;  an  iridescent  dream!  " 

We  have  had  enough  of  demagogy.  In  Abraham 
Lincoln's  caustic  words:  You  can  fool  all  of  the 
people  some  of  the  time,  and  some  of  the  people  all 
of  the  time;  but  you  can't  fool  all  of  the  people  all  of 
the  time.  Most  of  us  now  ask  to  hear  plain  truth. 

If  you  gentlemen  can  see  and  will  say  that  there 
is  nothing  necessarily  fundamental  or  spontaneous 
in  "Labor  Unrest";  that  it  has  been  deliberately 
worked  up  for  years  by  demagogues  for  the  sake  of 
the  power  and  cash  in  it;  that  "organization"  has 
cost  "  Labor "  say  four  hundred  million  dollars  in 
dues,  plus  the  cost  of  seventy  thousand  strikes,  say 
eight  hundred  millions  of  lost  wages  in  forty  years; 
that  nevertheless  union  wages  lag  behind  both  non- 
union wages  and  cost  of  living  in  respective  increase, 
and  are  bound  to  lag  more  and  more  behind  as  union 
labor  gives  less  and  less  production  under  union 
rules  —  you  will  be  doing  us  all,  laborers  included, 
a  service. 

Laborers  are  not  fools,  and  probably  would  laugh 
at  you  if  you  ask  them  to  point  out  just  how  they 
are  "  oppressed,"  or  made  "  wage  slaves."  They 
know  well  enough  that  the  more  employers  (op- 
pressors) the  merrier;  that  "  Capital"  no  matter 
how  greedy,  has  never  managed  to  grind  American 
labor  down  below  the  level  of  the  best  paid  and  best 
fed  wage  workers  on  the  face  of  this  earth,  and  ap- 
parently has  never  tried  to  do  so.  It  would  make 
them  and  the  rest  of  us,  and  perhaps  some  of  your- 
selves, gentlemen,  more  content  and  optimistic  of  the 
future  of  our  country  to  accept  unreservedly  our 
wonderfully  fruitful  modern  American  capitalism  as 

[13] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

(with  rare  exception)  the  legitimate  offspring  of 
liberty  and  law;  morally  right,  socially  just,  econom- 
ically and  politically  invaluable  —  especially  to  that 
vast  multitude  of  good  honest  citizens  who  are 
absolutely  dependent  for  work  upon  the  captains 
who  have  the  brains  to  create  and  the  following  to 
finance  it. 

Fortunately  for  America  the  Reds  in  Russia,  and 
in  Europe  generally,  are  trying  out  before  our  eyes 
the  experiment  of  robbing  and  killing  off  those  who 
work  and  save,  those  who  employ  men  who  can't 
employ  themselves.  They  are  repeating  on  a  scale 
more  colossal  than  ever  before  attempted  the  tyranny 
and  waste  of  the  state  as  sole  employer.  The  foreign 
cables  a  few  days  ago  reported  that  the  Soviet  Gov- 
ernment in  Russia  has  just  announced  a  loss  in  oper- 
ating the  industries  taken  over  by  the  state  of  so 
many  billion  roubles  for  the  past  year  as  to  make 
the  staggering  losses  of  the  Wilson  Administration 
in  operating  the  railways  and  wires,  and  commencing 
the  airplane,  shipping,  nitrate,  and  other  produc- 
tion, look  like  "thirty  cents,"  as  the  phrase  goes. 
Long  before  we  are  likely  to  be  called  to  the  polls  to 
substitute  state  ownership  for  the  individual  enter- 
prise reserved  to  us  by  the  Constitution,  we  shall  be 
pretty  sure  of  a  magnificent  object  lesson  in  noting 
just  how  far  Lenine  and  Trotzky  succeed  in  correct- 
ing the  mistakes  of  the  Almighty,  who  chose  to  make 
men  differ  in  achievement  and  in  reward. 

When  that  moment  arrives,  if  ever,  I  am  optimist 
enough  to  back  the  common  sense  of  the  average 
voter  to  heed  the  proverb,  "  Let  well  enough  alone." 


[14] 


ISSUES  AND   POINT   OF   VIEW 


MEMBERSHIP 

AMERICAN  FEDERAT10NOFLABOR 

1881  TO  1919 


I 


i  i  i  i  i 
i  i  i  1 1 


i  i  i  i  i  i  i  i  i  i  i  i  i  i  i  i  i 

llimmillilMI 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 


American  Federation 
of  Labor 

For  Year  1919 
3,260,068 


National  and 

International 

Unions 


572 

local 

Department 
Councils 


46 

State  Federations^ 


816 

City  Central 
Bodies 


33,852 

Local  Unions 


[16] 


CHAPTER   III 

AMERICAN    FEDERATION   OF    LABOR.      GROWTH 
AND    INCOME 

THE  most  obvious  characteristics  of  Organized 
Labor  just  now  are  size,  wealth,  and  aggressive- 
ness; all  of  these  emphasized  by  the  partnership  — 
perhaps  a  bit  shaky  —  between  the  two  presidents, 
Messrs.  Wilson  and  Gompers.  For  a  while  it 
seemed  as  if  the  firm  style  should  read  the  other 
way,  —  Presidents  Gompers  and  Wilson. 

The  foregoing  diagrams,  borrowed  from  the 
A.  F.  L.  Annual  Report  for  1919,  tell  the  story 
at  once  of  the  great  size,  rapid  growth,  and  com- 
pletely centralized  control  of  Mr.  Gompers'  life 
work,  the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  No 
financial  statement  is  given  to  show  the  total  income 
and  expenditures  of  the  33,852  unions  existing  last 
year  —  now  said  to  number  over  thirty- four  thou- 
sand; but  an  estimate  may  be  hazarded  as  follows: 

Inquiry  from  various  union  men  of  different  trades 
around  Boston,  typical  of  building  construction,  fac- 
tory work,  railroad  and  public  service,  operation 
and  construction,  indicates  that  union  dues  average 
at  least  a  dollar  a  month  per  capita.  If  so,  the 
3,260,068  paying  members  of  the  A.  F.  L.  must 
have  paid  in  for  the  year  1919  around  thirty-nine 
million  dollars.  The  Report  says  they  got  back  in 
union  benefits  (sickness  and  death  mainly)  $6,705,- 
ooo  (strike  benefits  appear  to  be  paid  by  special 
assessment,  and  not  to  come  out  of  dues).  This 

[17] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

would  indicate  a  net  outlay  for  "organization"  for 
that  year  of  over  thirty-two  million  dollars,  paid  by 
the  A.  F.  L.  alone.  A  colossal  outlay  indeed! 

Besides  this,  the  four  Railway  Brotherhoods, 
which  number  some  four  hundred  and  fifty  thousand 
members,  probably  pay  in  somewhere  between  five 
and  ten  million  dollars  more.  It  would  not  be  ex- 
cessive to  guess  that  during  the  last  fifty  years  at 
least  four  hundred  and  fifty  million  dollars  have 
been  paid  in  by  these  two  groups  of  working  men 
(not  to  mention  the  Knights  of  Labor,  I.  W.  W., 
etc.)  for  dues  alone. 

From  1880  to  1905  the  Commissioner  of  Labor, 
the  late  Carroll  D.  Wright,  kept  and  tabulated  in 
a  most  valuable  way  the  statistics  of  strikes  and 
lockouts  in  the  United  States,  aggregating  over 
thirty-eight  thousand  strikes  and  lockouts,  affecting 
two  hundred  thousand  establishments.  Since  1905 
the  Department  of  Labor  has  kept  on  with  these 
statistics,  after  a  fashion,  but  not  in  uniform  shape 
for  totalizing  (perhaps  the  Secretary  of  Labor,  a 
trades-unionist,  thinks  it  not  wise  to  publish  too 
much  information  about  such  things).  As  well  as 
the  writer  can  put  together  such  figures  as  there  are 
since  1905,  there  have  been  some  seventy-five  thou- 
sand strikes  and  lockouts  since  1880,  of  which  more 
than  ninety  per  cent  (say  seventy  thousand)  were 
directly  due  to  Organized  Labor  and  were  handled  by 
it.  Now  the  United  States  census  estimates,  as  given 
by  the  New  York  World  Almanac,  fixed  the  industrial 
male  population  of  the  United  States  in  1917  at  about 
forty-eight  million  men  registered  for  the  first  selec- 
tive draft.  Let  us  concede  Mr.  Gompers'  claim 
(Report,  p.  474)  that  there  are  four  million  labor- 
ers organized,  or  one  twelfth  of  our  man  power, 
yet  that  twelfth,  according  to  the  records  of  the 

[18] 


A.   F.   L.   GROWTH  AND   INCOME 

Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  caused  nine 
tenths  of  over  seventy-five  thousand  strikes  recorded, 
the  unorganized  eleven  twelfths  of  the  workers  caus- 
ing but  one  tenth  of  the  same.  Reduced  to  ratios, 
Organized  Labor  is  just  ninety-nine  times  as  quar- 
relsome as  unorganized  labor.  In  other  words, 
"  organization  "  keeps  union  labor  in  a  peck  of  care- 
fully created  trouble,  at  enormous  expense  both  for 
annual  dues  and  for  wages  lost  in  strikes;  while,  as 
I  shall  hereafter  show,  for  some  reason  —  probably 
inefficiency  —  its  net  earning  power  is  steadily  drop- 
ping back,  in  comparison  with  that  of  free  unorgan- 
ized labor. 

This  unfortunate  yet  entirely  deserved  result  to 
union  labor  is  directly  due  to  militarism,  to  con- 
tinuous and  intentional  warfare  growing  out  of 
the  gospel  of  class  antagonism  preached  by  Mr. 
Gompers  and  his  associates;  for  the  purely  selfish 
purpose,  established  by  their  own  records,  of  main- 
taining centralized  control  of  labor  in  order  to  hold 
up  the  community. 

Before  leaving  the  Carroll  Wright  Report  let  us 
look  at  it  from  one  more  angle,  —  that  of  union 
activity  in  securing  better  conditions  as  to  child 
labor,  female  labor,  sanitation,  safeguarding  of 
hazardous  occupations,  workmen's  compensation  for 
injury,  etc.,  all  of  which  are  loudly  advertised  by 
Mr.  Gompers. 

All  that  I  can  fairly  admit  is,  that  Mr.  Gompers 
and  his  associates  have  been  mildly  sympathetic 
with  the  efforts  of  philanthropists  and  social  work- 
ers as  to  these  things,  which  hardly  at  all  affect 
the  growth  and  power  of  their  great  strike  ma- 
chinery. The  latter  has  never  been  militantly  ag- 
gressive, nor  has  conspicuously  taken  the  initiative, 
on  behalf  of  either  children  or  women.  Perhaps  of 

[19] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

late  years  (since  the  death  of  Mr.  Carroll  Wright 
the  Department  of  Labor  records  have  been  badly 
kept,  as  noted  above,  and  do  not  show)  the  unions 
may  have  done  some  real  fighting  for  these  things; 
but  out  of  nearly  thirty-seven  thousand  strikes  tabu- 
lated by  the  Wright  Report  prior  to  1905,  not  a 
single  one  was  called  on  behalf  of  women,  children, 
sanitation,  safeguards,  or  welfare  questions,  —  all 
of  which  were  left  to  the  reformers  to  busy  them- 
selves with. 

Of  late  (see  the  labor  provisions  of  the  Peace 
Treaty)  Mr.  Gompers  stands  for  stopping  child 
labor  under  sixteen  years  of  age,  for  equal  wages 
for  men  and  women,  and  for  stopping  piece  or  con- 
tract work  done  at  home  in  the  family.  All  of  these 
are  excellent  things;  but  in  assessing  Mr.  Gompers' 
motive  in  sponsoring  them  I  cannot  forget  that  few 
if  any  children  under  sixteen  go  to  work  unless 
obliged  to  do  so  by  their  parents,  —  who  as  well  as 
the  employers  are  actuated  by  greed  in  working 
children,  —  and  that  most  parents  in  the  unionized 
trades  must  be  union  members.  Nor  can  I  forget 
that  cheap  child  labor  tends  also  to  cheapen  union 
wage-scales,  and  that  the  same  thing  is  true  of 
women's  labor  and  of  work  done  at  home.  All 
three  thus  tend  to  compete  with  and  lower  union 
wages,  though  all  three  are  quite  within  the  power 
of  workers  themselves  to  prevent  without  legisla- 
tion to  curb  the  so-called  greed  of  employers.  It 
would  not  be  consistent  with  Mr.  Gompers'  record 
to  neglect  any  opportunity  either  to  block  wage 
competition,  or  to  saddle  employers  with  entire 
blame  for  greed  and  inhumanity  to  children,  even 
if  largely  perpetrated  by  their  own  parents.  Hence, 
perhaps,  his  recent  sponsorship. 

Before  dismissing  the  matter  of  growth  we  may 

[20] 


A.   F.   L.   GROWTH   AND   INCOME 

note  that  the  aforesaid  A.  F.  L.  diagram  shows  two 
periods  of  conspicuous  activity  and  increase,  —  the 
first  from  1900  to  1904,  and  the  second  from  1917 
to  date.  Both  these  periods  were  of  intensive  in- 
dustrial activity,  with  demand  for  labor  far  out- 
running supply.  The  reactions  in  business  of  1904 
and  1908  made  it  impossible  for  Mr.  Gompers  to 
call  successful  strikes  just  then,  and  the  worker  for 
a  year  or  two  afterwards  felt  it  was  wiser  to  keep 
away  from  strike  machines.  "Nothing  succeeds 
like  success."  When  men  are  scarce  and  employers 
are  bidding  up  wages,  and  hasten  to  "  come  across  " 
with  a  raise  every  time  a  business  agent  crooks  his 
finger,  it  is  easy  for  the  unions  to  say  "  You  see,  we 
can  do  it"  —  and  the  workman  is  apt  to  believe 
them.  It  is  different  when  there  are  four  men  for 
every  three  jobs,  as  happens  occasionally. 

Particularly  have  the  unions  grown  by  leaps  and 
bounds  since  the  passage  of  the  Adamson  Law  in 
1916,  since  Labor  felt  able  to  say:  "Now,  boys, 
we  own  the  United  States ;  just  watch  Congress  and 
President  Wilson !  Sam  Gompers  is  the  real  Presi- 
dent of  this  country." 

Well,  as  the  old  German  adage  had  it,  "Things 
are  so  ordained  that  the  trees  do  not  grow  into  the 
heavens"  —  sometimes  they  die  at  the  top,  some- 
times at  the  root;  sometimes  lightning,  sometimes 
the  axe,  relegates  them  to  the  brush  pile.  It  is 
much  the  same  with  Presidents. 


[21] 


CHAPTER   IV 

THE    AMERICAN    FEDERATION    OF    LABOR 
CONSTITUTION   AND    APPEAL 

THERE  can  be  no  more  reliable  evidence  of  the 
predatory  theories,  principles,  purposes,  and  meth- 
ods of  American  Organized  Labor  —  as  guided  by 
Mr.  Gompers  —  than  the  Annual  Reports  of  the 
Conventions  of  his  great  creation,  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor.  No  accusation  of  capitalistic 
prejudice  or  unfairness  can  obscure  conclusions 
based  upon  the  votes  and  utterances  officially  re- 
corded and  put  into  public  circulation  by  himself 
and  those  he  trusts. 

The  Preamble  to  the  Constitution  of  the  Ameri- 
can Federation  of  Labor  sets  forth  its  reason  for 
existence  in  the  following  words: 

"  Whereas,  a  struggle  is  going  on  in  all  the  nations  of  the 
civilized  world  between  the  oppressors  and  the  oppressed  of 
all  the  countries,  a  struggle  between  the  capitalist  and  the 
laborer,  which  grows  in  intensity  from  year  to  year,  and  will 
work  disastrous  results  to  the  toiling  millions  if  they  are 
not  combined  for  mutual  protection  and  benefit. 

"  It  therefore  behooves  the  representatives  of  the  Trade 
and  Labor  Unions  of  America,  in  convention  assembled,  to 
adopt  such  measures  and  disseminate  such  principles  among 
the  mechanics  and  laborers  of  our  country  as  will  perma- 
nently unite  them  to  secure  the  recognition  of  rights  to 
which  they  are  justly  entitled. 

"  We,  therefore,  declare  ourselves  in  favor  of  the  forma- 
tion of  a  thorough  Federation,  embracing  every  Trade  and 

[22] 


A.  F.  L.  CONSTITUTION  AND  APPEAL 

Labor  Organization  in  America,  organized  under  the  Trade 
Union  system." 

The  "Objects"  of  the  Federation  are  set  forth 
in  Article  II  of  the  Constitution,  —  the  formation  of 
local  unions,  their  integration  into  central,  state  or 
territorial,  national  and  international  organizations 
based  upon  autonomy  of  each  trade,  departments 
covering  industries,  and  American  federation  of 
them  all;  also  the  securing  of  legislation  in  the  in- 
terest of  the  working  people,  influencing  public 
opinion  by  peaceful  and  legal  methods  in  favor  of 
organized  labor,  and  aiding  the  labor  press. 

Perhaps  Mr.  Gompers  and  his  associates  who 
framed  the  foregoing  Preamble  and  have  maintained 
it  for  forty  years  as  the  foundation  of  their  great 
structure  believe  its  gospel  of  class  antagonism  and 
are  sincere,  or  perhaps  they  are  merely  rank  dema- 
gogues. The  reader  can  judge  for  himself  from 
their  long  record  in  action.  But  the  gospel  itself  is 
a  lie;  suspiciously  like  the  original  lie  invented  by 
Karl  Marx,  the  German  apostle  of  Socialism  — 
though  Mr.  Gompers  repudiates  that  cult.  Whether 
Mr.  Gompers  believes  the  lie  or  not,  there  can  be 
no  possible  doubt  as  to  why  he  put  it  where  it 
stands.  His  purpose  was  and  is  to  arouse  class 
hatred,  and  stir  Labor  to  unite  in  fighting  Capital. 
In  reality,  there  is  practically  no  "oppression"  of 
Labor  by  Capital,  and  little  "struggle"  except  that 
which  professional  agitators  stir  up  in  the  course  of 
their  business. 

/,  for  instance,  am  a  capitalist,  small  or  great. 
You  are  a  laborer.  You  are  looking  for  a  job  — 
some  one  to  hire  you  to  do  his  work,  because  you 
have  not  the  brains,  energy,  and  thrift  to  provide 
work  for  yourself.  There  are  a  great  many  more 
like  you,  and  a  very  few  more  like  me.  The  many 

[23] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

are  always  coming  to  the  few  for  jobs;  shopping 
around  among  them  for  the  best  they  can  find.  / 
come  along,  having  earned  and  saved  a  little  money, 
and  with  others  who  have  also  saved  something  put 
up  the  cash  to  start  a  new  factory.  I  then  offer 
my  new  jobs  to  you  and  your  friends  who  are  look- 
ing for  them,  competing  with  prior  employers  for 
your  services.  If  my  offer  is  better  than  theirs,  you 
take  mine;  if  not,  you  take  the  best,  whoever  of- 
fers it. 

In  this  perfectly  peaceful  transaction  where  is 
the  "oppressor"  or  the  "oppressed"  of  the  Gom- 
pers  Preamble  ?  Am  /  your  "  oppressor  "  in  offering 
you  the  choice  of  one  more  job  than  before?  Are 
you  "oppressed"  by  having  a  larger  choice  and 
keener  competition  for  your  services?  Is  it  not 
"  the  more  the  merrier"  with  you  when  looking  for 
a  job?  Are  not  a  hundred  such  "oppressors"  at 
least  a  thousand  times  better  for  you  than  none  at 
all?  Are  you  particularly  conscious  of  "industrial 
slavery"  when  you  say  to  me  contemptuously,  "No, 
I  would  not  look  at  your  job;  I  can  do  far  better 
just  around  the  corner." 

To  use  plain  language  and  tell  the  exact  truth, 
what  perfectly  rotten  demagogy  it  is  to  describe  an 
entirely  voluntary  bargain  —  presumably  beneficial 
to  both  sides  or  it  would  not  be  closed  —  as  a 
"struggle  between  the  capitalist  and  the  laborer" 
which  "will  work  disastrous  results  to  the  toiling 
millions"!  Perhaps  Mr.  Gompers  regards  it  as 
"  disastrous  "  to  the  toiling  millions  to  have  any  oc- 
casion at  all  to  work  for  what  used  to  be  called  an 
honest  living,  and  feels  that  Capital  owes  Labor  the 
earth,  "  free  gratis,  and  for  nothing." 

Whatever  Mr.  Gompers'  real  opinion  may  be  on 
this  question  of  disaster,  we  can  but  conclude  that 

[24] 


A.  F.  L.  CONSTITUTION  AND  APPEAL 

such  inflammatory  talk,  such  stirrings  up  of  class 
consciousness  and  hatred  as  the  above,  has  in  prac- 
tice been  valuable  to  Mr.  Gompers  in  his  business; 
at  least  it  is  found  all  the  way  through  the  Report 
so  often  quoted  herein.  Note  the  following  lan- 
guage: On  page  71:  "the  arbitrary  or  autocratic 
whim  of  the  employer  ...  It  is  inconceivable 
that  the  workers  as  free  citizens  should  remain 
under  autocratically  made  law,  within  industry  and 
commerce."  Page  72 :  "  There  are  no  means 
whereby  the  workers  can  maintain  fair  wages  ex- 
cept through  trade-union  effort."  Page  83:  "the 
labor  movement  .  .  .  undertakes  to  protect  the 
wealth  producers  against  the  exorbitant  greed  of 
special  interests;  against  profiteering,  against  ex- 
ploitation, against  the  detestable  methods  of  irre- 
sponsible greed,  against  the  inhumanity  and  crime 
of  heartless  corporations  and  employers."  Again: 
"  Unionism  is  the  only  hope  of  the  workers."  Page 
407 :  "  the  things  that  the  American  Chamber  of 
Commerce,  every  labor  hating  corporation  in  our 
country,  and  every  institution  that  refuses  to  recog- 
nize the  right  of  working  men  or  women  to  organize 
have  been  fighting  day  and  night." 

But  enough  of  such  quotations;  the  Report  is  full 
of  them  and  will  speak  for  itself.  The  A.  F.  L. 
is  forty  years  old,  but  it  learns  no  charity  or  wis- 
dom. Its  appeal  today  is  as  it  has  always  been, — 
to  the  meanest  of  human  motives  —  envy,  hatred, 
and  malice,  of  class  against  class,  here  in  free  Amer- 
ica, where  our  fathers  thought  to  do  away  with 
class;  or  rather  to  throw  every  class  open  to  every 
man  according  to  his  ability  to  attain. 

I  have  been  an  employer  most  of  my  life,  and 
never  hated  my  labor;  and  my  men  never  hated  me, 
but  followed  me  from  one  concern  to  another.  I 

[25] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

never  knew  an  employer  that  did  hate  his  labor; 
and  two  thousand  employers,  in  answering  a  ques- 
tionnaire I  once  put  out  as  chairman  of  a  committee 
of  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers,  tes- 
tified to  cordial  relations  with  the  large  majority  of 
their  men.  Long  association  breeds  friendship;  few 
men  grow  to  hate  each  other  —  as  you  yourselves 
are  aware,  gentlemen  of  the  press.  Judge  for  your- 
selves whether  the  Chamber  of  Commerce,  for  in- 
stance, deserves  the  line  of  denunciation  put  out 
above;  or  is  it  mere  poison  injected  by  labor  dema- 
gogues to  make  bad  blood  between  workman  and 
employer  as  man  and  man? 

The  game  is  as  simple  as  A,  B,  C.  Every  worker 
who  can  be  convinced  that  "  Unionism  is  the  only 
hope  of  the  workers"  will  join  the  union  and  pay 
union  dues. 


[26] 


CHAPTER  V 

THE   RIGHT   TO   ORGANIZE,   TO   STRIKE,    ETC. 
THE    GARY   CASE 

WHERE  there  are  no  unions  and  each  workman 
makes  his  own  bargain  with  his  employer  (as  once 
was  universally  the  case),  work  and  wages  are  de- 
termined by  the  law  of  supply  and  demand  acting 
on  the  labor  market;  by  the  competition  or  absence 
of  competition  of  workmen  for  the  same  job  or  of 
employer  for  the  same  workmen.  When  business 
is  poor  and  trade  dull  and  jobs  are  scarce,  the  men 
compete  for  them  with  each  other,  ask  less  and  less 
pay,  and  wages  fall.  When  trade  is  good  and  shops 
run  full,  men  are  scarce  and  employers  compete  for 
them,  offering  more  and  more,  and  wages  rise. 

Trade-unionism  is  an  attempt  to  destroy  this 
free  competition  among  wage  workers,  with  its  re- 
sulting rise  and  fall  of  work  and  wages,  and  sub- 
stitute collective  action  to  monopolize  work  and 
arbitrarily  determine  conditions  by  coercion  of  the 
strike,  or  the  fear  of  it,  rather  than  by  market  con- 
ditions affecting  labor  or  trade.  Combination  for 
effecting  monopoly  and  coercion  is  the  essential  pur- 
pose of  Organized  Labor,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that 
every  form  of  conspiracy  to  destroy  competition, 
restrict  production,  and  fix  prices  has  been  held  a 
crime  at  common  law  for  centuries. 

Before  considering  the  law,  however,  let  us  con- 
sider the  moralities.  Let  us  take  a  recent  conspicu- 

[27] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

ous,  concrete  case — say  the  late  Steel  Corporation 
strike  at  Gary,  Indiana.  The  "right  to  organize," 
the  "  right  to  strike,"  and  the  "  right  to  collective 
bargaining"  were  asserted  there  in  the  largest  way, 
under  conditions  absolutely  free  from  collateral 
complications.  Here  is  the  story  of  that  famous 
town : 

Twenty  years  ago  the  eastbound  trains  from  Chi- 
cago used  to  traverse  the  site  of  that  present  busy 
manufacturing  community,  just  over  the  Indiana 
state  line.  It  was  for  fifteen  or  twenty  miles  in 
every  direction  a  waste  of  slightly  rolling  ridges  of 
sand,  —  left  probably  by  the  gradual  recession  of 
the  south  end  of  Lake  Michigan  and  parallel  to  its 
shore  line,  —  divided  from  each  other  ofttimes  by 
lagoons  of  stagnant  water,  and  covered  with  sparse 
growth  of  rushes,  coarse  grasses,  scrub  oaks  and 
pines.  The  tract  was  perfectly  useless  for  farming 
or  suburban  improvement  and  had  no  river  or  har- 
bor waters  to  permit  development  as  a  port.  There 
was  hardly  a  house  or  an  inhabitant  throughout  the 
who!  3  region.  Early  in  this  century  the  great  Steel 
Corporation  recognized  the  vicinity  of  Chicago  as 
a  strategic  center  for  the  manufacture  and  distribu- 
tion of  steel;  convenient  for  the  assembling  of  iron 
ore  by  lake,  coal  and  coke  by  lake  or  rail;  close  to 
a  great  city  for  supply  of  labor;  and  a  great  rail- 
road and  lake  transportation  center  for  quick  and 
economical  distribution  of  finished  product  the  year 
round.  The  corporation  bought  largely  of  these 
waste  lands,  amf  in  two  years  like  magic  arose  the 
great  installation  and  dependent  community  that 
exists  today. 

There  was  not  a  human  being  on  the  spot 
until  construction  commenced.  Every  workingman 
in  Gary  came  there  'voluntarily  from  somewhere, 

[28] 


RIGHT  TO   ORGANIZE,   ETC. 

bringing  his  family,  in  order  to  accept  work  and 
wages  offered  by  the  Steel  Corporation;  which  were 
so  entirely  satisfactory  to  him  that  he  pulled  up 
stakes  elsewhere  and  paid  railroad  fare  in  order  to 
get  there.  There  was  no  union  at  Gary  —  no  men 
to  unionize  —  and  it  has  never  been  "organized." 
Throughout  the  entire  life  of  the  Gary  project  the 
Steel  Corporation  has  been  a  non-union,  open  shop 
concern,  the  most  conspicuous  antagonist  of  the 
closed  shop  in  America.  The  plant  and  the  town 
were  named  for  Judge  Gary,  head  of  the  Steel 
Corporation,  of  late  denounced  more  perhaps  than 
any  man  in  America  by  Organized  Labor  as  an  auto- 
crat. Every  man  who  voluntarily  went  to  Gary 
ought  to  have  known,  and  probably  did  know,  that 
he  was  going  to  work  in  a  non-union  plant  under  his 
own  individual  bargain,  and  not  under  a  collective 
bargain  made  for  him  by  any  union  leader. 

In  order  to  provide  the  millions  required  to  build 
the  great  plant,  the  stockholders  of  the  Steel  Corpo- 
ration went  without  dividends  for  many  years.  The 
company  held  back  its  earnings,  instead  of  giving 
them  to  its  owners  to  spend,  and  put  them  into  this 
and  other  enlargements  of  its  producing  properties, 
enabling  it  to  employ  many  thousands  more  work- 
ingmen  than  before.  As  far  as  published  records 
show,  not  a  single  workingman  of  all  who  came  to 
Gary  put  one  dollar  of  his  own  savings  into  the 
plant  that  was  to  give  him  his  job.  Plant  and  job 
were  created,  paid  for,  and  thrown  open  to  such 
workingmen  as  might  choose  to  avail  themselves  of 
them,  with  the  money  and  at  the  risk  of  perfect 
strangers,  who  were  in  no  way  legally  or  morally 
responsible  for  the  workmen's  existence  or  welfare; 
who  were  in  no  way  obligated  to  offer  them  work 
and  wages  —  to  say  nothing  of  democratic  condi- 

[29] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

tions  —  either  on  autocratic  conditions  or  on  any 
conditions  at  all. 

Nevertheless,  because  there  was  promise  of  profit 
in  making  steel  at  Gary  —  relying,  as  investors  al- 
ways do,  upon  current  trade  conditions,  cost  of  raw 
material,  transportation  and  going  wages  in  the  Chi- 
cago market,  and  upon  current  selling  prices  for 
product,  subject  to  such  probable  changes  as  could 
be  forecasted  by  expert  advisers  —  the  Steel  Corpo- 
ration went  ahead,  built  the  Gary  plant,  and  has  run 
it  successfully  ever  since. 

Everybody  then  applauded  the  venture  as  per- 
fectly legitimate,  useful,  bringing  population  and 
prosperity  to  an  empty  wilderness.  The  press  and 
the  politicians  joined  in  welcoming  its  promoters. 
Many  thousand  workmen  and  their  families  came 
to  Gary  and  remained.  The  town,  largely  built  by 
the  Corporation,  was  well  planned  and  constructed; 
in  many  respects  remarkable.  The  school  system 
developed  there,  for  instance,  has  in  these  few  years 
been  copied  all  over  the  land.  The  plant  made  a 
lot  of  steel;  the  men  and  the  Corporation  made  a  lot 
of  money.  Everything  and  everybody — except  a 
politician  now  and  then  —  went  humming  along, 
peaceful,  prosperous,  and  contented. 

There  was  one  big  fly  in  the  ointment  —  and  that 
in  Mr.  Gompers'  pot.  '"Gary,"  like  "Homestead" 
and  other  great  plants  of  the  Steel  Corporation,  was 
not  "  organized."  Judge  Gary  was  so  "  damned 
autocratic"  that  his  workmen  by  the  tens  of  thou- 
sands were  actually  free  to  make  their  own  indi- 
vidual bargains  for  work  and  wages  without  paying 
dues  to  "  representatives  of  their  own  choosing  "  to 
bargain  collectively  for  them. 

In  fact,  they  were  not  choosing  any  representa- 
tives at  all;  were  dealing  direct  with  their  employer, 

[30] 


RIGHT  TO   ORGANIZE,   ETC. 

and,  worst  of  all,  were  making  more  steel  and  more 
money  than  union  law  allowed.  More  damnable 
yet,  the  Steel  Corporation  was  doing  all  kinds  of 
welfare  work  for  its  employees  and  was  helping 
them  to  save  their  money,  and  invest  it  in  the  stock 
of  the  Company,  or  to  build  and  own  their  own 
houses  —  all  of  which  are  accursed  contrivances  of 
the  devil  to  make  the  workingman  content  with  his 
job,  independent  of  union  benefits,  and  interested 
in  the  prosperity  of  the  business  that  supports  him. 
The  great  size  of  the  bodies  of  workmen  employed 
by  the  corporation;  its  conspicuous  avoidance  of 
Mr.  Gompers;  the  big  wages  earned  by  its  men  (see 
Annual  Report  United  States  Steel  Corporation, 
1919,  showing  average  wage  paid  per  man  for  1914, 
$677;  1915,  $925;  1916,  $1042;  1917,  $1296; 
1918,  $1605;  1919,  $1902),  all  without  collective 
bargaining;  the  rate  at  which  they  were  buying  the 
company's  stock  —  namely  one  hundred  and  sixty- 
seven  thousand  shares  this  year  (1920),  which  in 
ten  years  will  well  make  the  employees  own  half 
of  the  whole  enormous  concern  I  —  all  of  this  public 
and  successful  defiance  of  trades-unionism  was  the 
worst  possible  advertisement  for  its  ruling  spirit. 

Last,  but  emphatically  not  least,  there  was  the 
exasperating  thought  that  to  "  organize  "  the  Steel 
Corporations  two  hundred  and  sixty-eight  thousand 
men  —  including  Gary  and  all  the  other  plants  — 
would  pay  the  organizers  (assuming  the  Chicago 
figure  of  1903  of  two  dollars  per  man  unionized) 
over  half  a  million  dollars,  and  bring  in  to  the  union 
treasuries  monthly  dues  of  say  one  dollar  apiece,  or 
over  three  million  dollars  per  annum!  A  lot  of 
well-salaried  officials  might  draw  pay  for  running 
the  twenty-six  big  unions  involved! 

Under  these  compelling  considerations,  whether 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

as  human  being  or  labor  leader,  who  can  condemn 
Mr.  Gompers  for  feeling  that  he  must  unionize  the 
Steel  Corporation  or  "bust";  or  for  choosing  as 
the  psychological  moment  for  the  adventure  the  year 
1919,  when  he  might  reasonably  have  thought 
he  had  the  Administration  at  Washington  in  his 
breeches  pocket,  with  general  elections  coming  in 
1920. 

Also,  he  had  kept  organizers  at  work  in  the  Steel 
Corporation  plants  for  some  time,  and  had  suc- 
ceeded in  unionizing  perhaps  a  quarter  of  the  em- 
ployees,—  mostly  non-English  speaking  aliens,  —  so 
the  newspapers  said  at  the  time.  Perhaps  he  had 
some  doubt  about  cutting  loose  from  President  Wil- 
son, and  about  his  entire  preparedness  to  strike; 
but  he  was  driven  to  it  by  fear  that  the  unions, 
under  younger  leaders,  might  strike  and  get  away 
from  him  his  personal  control.  Anyway,  he  sanc- 
tioned calling  a  general  strike  in  the  steel  industry, 
aimed  particularly  at  the  Steel  Corporation. 

Perhaps,  though  a  wonderfully  astute  agitator, 
his  head  was  rather  turned,  as  was  President  Wil- 
son's, by  the  dizzy  success  of  his  foreign  reception 
in  1918  —  after  four  years  of  unprecedented  power 
here.  At  any  rate,  when  he  got  back,  late  in  1918, 
he  notified  the  Pan-American  Labor  Conference  at 
Laredo,  Texas,  that  Labor  never  would  give  up 
the  high  wages  and  short  hours  that  prevailed  dur- 
ing the  war,  no  matter  what  happened  to  business. 
The  Federation  and  the  Railway  Brotherhoods  ac- 
cepted and  followed  this  lead  during  1919  in  an 
incipient  railway  strike,  the  longshore  strike,  the 
"  Plumb  Plan,"  the  steel  strike,  Boston  police  strike, 
coal  strike,  etc. ;  while  the  I.  W.  W.  worked  up  the 
Seattle  strike  in  February  of  that  year,  on  its  own 
hook. 

[32] 


RIGHT  TO   ORGANIZE,   ETC. 

Coming  back  to  Gary,  we  know  what  happened. 
The  President,  a  better  politician  than  Gompers, 
had  had  time  to  take  notice  of  symptoms  of  popu- 
lar drift  away  from  "Labor";  to  sense  growing 
wrath  at  the  Adamson  Law  and  rebellion  against 
heavier  burdens  on  the  taxpayers,  also  against  strikes 
aimed  at  public  service;  to  estimate  as  a  political 
factor  the  instant,  widely  voiced  approval  of  Calvin 
Coolidge  and  Ole  Hanson  —  reflected  in  Congress 
and  the  press.  He  refused  to  go  along  with  the 
Brotherhoods  and  the  Federation.  He  no  longer 
wrote,  as  he  once  did,  of  Mr.  Gompers  —  "I  like 
to  match  my  mind  with  a  mind  that  can  work  in 
harness."  When  the  steel  strike  came  to  a  show- 
down (perhaps  to  kill  two  birds  with  one  stone,  an 
unpopular  strike  and  a  popular  Presidential  possi- 
bility), he  directed  the  United  States  Army,  under 
command  of  General  Leonard  Wood,  to  maintain 
law  and  order  in  the  steel  and  coal  regions.  This 
simple  constitutional  order  —  the  prevention  of  vio- 
lence and  sabotage  and  the  protection  of  all  men, 
union  and  non-union,  in  the  peaceful  enjoyment  of 
their  freedom  to  work  or  not  as  they  chose  —  Gen- 
eral Wood  performed  so  quietly,  so  justly,  and  so 
well,  as  to  command  the  admiration  of  the  country, 
union  labor  included.  Whereupon  —  as  always  hap- 
pens with  simple  maintenance  of  law  and  order, 
mere  prevention  of  violence  and  sabotage,  mere 
freedom  of  the  individual  working  man  to  do  his 
own  bargaining  and  voluntarily  accept  the  best  job 
in  sight  —  the  great  steel,  coal,  and  railway  strikes, 
one  after  the  other,  collapsed.  There  will  perhaps 
be  an  aftermath  to  the  settlement  of  the  coal  and 
railway  strikes,  since  government  commissions  have 
intervened  to  settle  wages ;  probably  an  unavoidable 
aftermath,  as  to  which  I  offer  no  criticism.  There 

[33] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

should  be  none,  however,  to  the  steel  strike  settle- 
ment, in  which  government  and  Gompers  took  no 
hand;  in  which  case  hats  must  come  off  to  Judge 
Gary. 

Such  is  the  history  of  the  Gary  strike;  now,  then, 
for  the  rights  of  it.  Mr.  Gompers  is  strenuous  as 
to  rights. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  /,  for  instance,  have 
perfect  moral  and  legal  "right"  to  save  money  and 
put  it  into  a  steel  plant  or  any  other  plant  for  any 
useful,  lawful  purpose  at  Gary  or  anywhere  else; 
and  that  having  done  so  I  have  an  equally  unques- 
tioned "right"  to  offer  work  and  wages  under  any 
lawful  conditions  to  you  individually,  to  ten  thou- 
1  sand  of  you  collectively,  or  to  no  one  at  all.  On 
your  part,  individually  or  collectively,  you  have  un- 
questioned "right"  to  accept  or  refuse  work  and 
wages  as  offered. 

You  have  likewise  unquestioned  "  right  to  or- 
ganize," to  join  a  trades-union,  or  not  to  join,  as  you 
choose.  You  are  a  free  American,  and  you  have  un- 
questioned "right  to  strike,"  to  quit  work,  individu- 
ally or  collectively,  at  any  time,  providing  you  break 
no  agreement  in  so  doing.  Mr.  Gompers'  loud  de- 
mands for  the  "right  to  organize"  and  the  "right 
to  strike "  are  the  merest  camouflage,  intended  to 
fool  the  public,  and  entirely  uncalled  for;  because 
no  one,  even  judge  Gary,  has  ever  denied  them. 
The  most  smashing  proof  of  that  fact  lies  in  the 
diagram  printed  in  the  1919  Report  of  the  A.  F.  L., 
showing  33,852  unions  actually  organized  and  cross- 
organized  to  an  amazing  centralization;  and  in  the 
record  of  over  seventy  thousand  strikes  called  by 
Organized  Labor  since  1880,  contained  in  the  Bulle- 
tins of  the  Department  of  Labor  at  Washington. 
One  might  as  well  deny  the  force  and  operation  of 

[34] 


RIGHT   TO   ORGANIZE,   ETC. 

gravity  as  to  deny  the  existence  and  wholesale  ex- 
ercise of  these  "rights." 

Conversely,  but  consistently  with  them,  I  have  no 
"  right,"  and  there  exists  under  our  free  institutions 
no  legal  or  constitutional  power,  to  compel  you  to 
work  for  me,  or  to  take  my  wages,  individually  or 
collectively,  just  as  you  have  no  "  right,"  individual 
or  collective,  and  there  exists  no  legal  or  constitu- 
tional power,  to  compel  me  to  offer  work  and  wages 
to  you  or  to  any  one,  on  any  conditions  whatever. 

In  fact  there  cannot  be  such  a  thing  as  a  right  to 
bargain,  individually  or  collectively!  A  bargain  is 
a  voluntary  agreement  between  two  or  more  parties, 
the  essence  of  which  is  that  the  parties  freely  reach 
a  common  understanding.  Neither  party  can  pos- 
sibly have  any  "right"  of  any  kind  compelling  or 
growing  out  of  a  bargain  unless  and  until  that  bar- 
gain has  actually  been  made;  until  voluntary  agree- 
ment has  actually  been  reached.  Neither  party  has 
a  "right"  to  demand,  though  common  sense  and 
courtesy  usually  concede,  even  a  preliminary  con- 
ference for  the  purpose  of  proposing  a  bargain. 
Either  party  may  decline  even  to  negotiate. 

That  is  precisely  what  happened  to  Mr.  Gom- 
pers  when  he  said  to  Judge  Gary:  "You  have  been 
dealing  direct  with  your  men  for  many  years;  now 
we  have  unionized  them  and  you  must  deal  with 
them  only  through  us,  their  chosen  representatives 
—  or  we  will  strike  the  entire  steel  industry."  Judge 
Gary  answered:  "Whether  you  have  unionized  our 
men  we  doubt;  but  we  have  dealt  direct  with  them 
for  many  years  to  our  own  and  apparently  their 
satisfaction;  so  we  do  not  care  to  deal  with  them 
through  union  organizations  at  all;  we  have  had 
trouble  enough  with  unions  long  ago.  We  shall 
continue,  as  of  late  years,  to  offer  work  and  wages 

[35] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

to  workmen  individually.  They  are  entirely  free 
to  refuse  or  accept,  just  as  they  see  fit.  We  hope 
and  believe  many  will  accept;  but  in  any  case  we 
courteously  decline  to  negotiate  with  workmen 
through  trade-unions.  Our  experience  warns  us 
against  so  doing." 

Mr.  Gompers  then  appealed  to  politics  against 
Judge  Gary  as  "autocratic."  But  —  what  is  there 
of  autocracy  in  offering  jobs  direct  to  men  who  are 
entirely  free  to  refuse? 

It  is  only  in  recent  years  that  Labor  leaders  have 
invented  such  catch  phrases  as  "  right  to  organize," 
"  right  to  strike,"  "  right  of  collective  bargaining," 
"autocracy  of  capital,"  "aspirations  of  Labor," 
"democratization  of  industry,"  etc.  —  all  brand 
new,  whose  effectiveness  as  slogans  of  demagogy, 
whose  appeal  to  the  average  unthinking,  liberty- 
loving  American,  must  indeed  be  conceded,  and  can 
hardly  be  overestimated.  These  slogans  have  been 
sounded  only  since  the  action  of  the  State  and 
United  States  supreme  courts  in  successive  decisions 
has  gradually  built  up  growing  barriers  to  the 
plain  old-fashioned  coercion  practiced  by  organized 
labor,  —  barriers  which  more  and  more  tend  to  shut 
out  coercion  altogether.  Without  coercion,  as  Mr. 
Gompers  well  knows,  his  kind  of  trade-unionism 
would  soon  die  a  natural  death.  Hence  he  and  his 
associates  have  logically  been  driven  by  force  of 
events  —  as  well  as  by  personal  ambition  —  to  reach 
out  from  the  domain  of  labor  to  that  of  politics; 
for  sanction  of  law,  as  well  as  official  power,  to 
carry  out  Labor's  coercion  of  Capital.  Originally, 
the  unions  did  not  bother  with  public  opinion  or 
slogans,  but  frankly  relied  on  what  Wall  Street  calls 
"nuisance  value"  to  bring  employers  to  terms. 

At  Gary,  for  instance,  there  is  an  investment  of 
[36] 


RIGHT  TO   ORGANIZE,   ETC. 

fifty  million  dollars  or  more,  —  I  do  not  know, — 
with  many  thousand  men  peacefully  at  work  who 
had  been  glad  to  take  and  keep  for  many  years  the 
jobs  offered  by  the  Corporation.  The  organizers 
of  the  A.  F.  L.  came  along  and  said  to  the  men: 
"  You  are  fools  to  work  for  Judge  Gary  on  his  terms. 
Here  you  are  all  right  together,  where  it  has  taken 
the  company  years  to  locate  and  train  you.  It 
would  take  it  as  many  more  years  to  break  in  a  new 
force  if  you  should  quit.  Meantime  these  great 
plants  in  which  it  has  put  millions  would  be  idle, 
and  it  would  lose  enormously.  It  can't  get  along 
without  you;  and  it  can't  afford  to  fight  you.  All 
you  have  to  do  is  to  join  the  union,  and  leave  it  to 
us  experienced  leaders,  backed  by  all  the  iron  and 
steel  workingmen  in  America,  to  bring  these  auto- 
crats to  their  knees.  You  can  strike  and  take  a  nice 
vacation  for  a  few  weeks;  and  we  will  see  to  it  that 
you  get  pay  for  your  full  time  just  the  same,  beside 
shorter  hours  and  longer  pay  checks  when  you  go 
back  to  work.  The  Steel  Corporation  is  rich  and 
can  stand  it.  Also,  you  can  choose  your  own  fore- 
men in  future  and  make  your  own  working  rules, 
if  you  don't  like  those  you  have.  Be  men,  and  have 
something  to  say  about  your  own  jobs.  Labor  is 
king.  Teach  Judge  Gary  a  lesson." 

Now,  to  organize  and  strike  is  entirely  within  the 
right  of  the  workmen  at  Gary,  and  Homestead  too, 
provided  that  they  keep  all  contracts,  individual  or 
collective,  under  which  they  accepted  work  and 
wages.  At  both  plants,  most  likely,  they  work 
largely  by  the  day  or  hour,  and  are  perfectly  justi- 
fied in  quitting  without  notice,  one  by  one  or  all 
together,  if  they  think  it  to  their  interest  to  do  so. 
That  is  one  of  the  chances  a  corporation  takes  in 
putting  millions  into  a  plant,  that  it  may  fail  to  get 

[37] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

labor;  also,  in  employing  by  the  day,  that  labor  may 
quit  any  day.  The  laborer,  too,  takes  a  like  chance, 
that  the  corporation  may  shut  down  work,  or  lay 
him  individually  off  any  day.  Both  parties  are 
gambling  on  the  necessities,  each  of  the  other;  and 
if  both  keep  their  agreements  up  to  the  time  they 
end  them,  there  is  no  moral  or  legal  right  or  wrong 
involved. 

But  coercion  is  different.  Wrong  is  done,  courts 
enjoin,  soldiers  entrain  for  Gary,  and  Mr.  Gompers 
rages  against  "autocracy"  and  injunctions,  and  de- 
mands democratization  of  industry,  when  —  as  in- 
variably is  the  case  —  union  leaders  serve  notice  on 
all  concerned  as  follows: 

"You  are  out  on  strike.  The  union  will  see  to 
it  that  no  man  takes  the  jobs  you  men  have  struck 
on;  the  jobs  belong  to  you,  and  no  one  else,  espe- 
cially no  non-union  man,  shall  take  them.  Our  picket 
line  will  see  to  that;  and  also  that  no  non-union 
material  goes  in  or  out  of  this  place.  This  business 
must  come  to  an  absolute  standstill,  no  matter  what 
loss  to  it  or  to  non-union  labor  is  involved,  until 
such  time  as  its  boss  walks  up  to  the  Captain's  of- 
fice, settles,  and  reemploys  you  men;  this  time  not 
on  his  conditions  but  on  yours" 

Right  there  on  the  picket  line  is  where  law  and 
order  come  to  a  show-down.  Clearly,  the  pickets 
can  stop  the  passage  of  men  and  material  only  in 
three  ways:  by  persuasion,  by  abuse  (the  odious 
epithet  "scab"),  or  by  violence.  Only  the  first  is 
lawful;  but  all  three  are  almost  invariably  used. 
Breach  of  peace  and  often  loss  of  life  result,  and 
the  courts,  the  police,  and  the  military  are  neces- 
sarily called  in.  It  is  well  understood  from  years 
of  experience  that  unions  seldom  successfully  co- 
erce when  no  picket  lines  are  established,  or  when 

[38] 


RIGHT   TO   ORGANIZE,   ETC. 

police  or  military  keep  the  peace  and  protect  all  who 
come  and  go  along  the  picket  line.  Therefore,  local 
courts  are  often  appealed  to  in  advance  to  enjoin 
the  pickets  from  violence  and  abuse;  and  judges 
frequently  grant  the  injunctions  asked  for.  Occa- 
sionally a  judge  has  enjoined  picketing  altogether, 
as  sure  to  provoke  violence;  but  usually  courts  en- 
join only  against  violence  and  abuse,  recognizing 
"picketing  with  peaceful  persuasion"  as  lawful  use 
of  the  streets  and  constitutional  freedom  of  speech. 
Now,  no  one,  even  the  trades-unionist,  has  the 
gall  to  assert  that  the  courts,  the  police,  or  the  mili- 
tary do  any  wrong,  or  anything  more  than  their 
sworn  duty,  in  keeping  the  peace,  maintaining  law 
and  order,  and  the  free  use  of  the  public  streets  to 
all  comers;  or  that  the  "right"  to  organize  and  to 
strike  includes  the  "right"  to  beat  up  a  non-union 
man;  or  drop  a  monkey  wrench  into  an  "unfair" 
employer's  fast-running  and  costly  machinery.  The 
union  leaders  always  vehemently  deny  and  disown 
all  encouragement  of  and  responsibility  for  violence 
and  sabotage.  But  the  bitter  and  constant  attacks 
upon  the  courts  by  Organized  Labor  because  of 
so-called  "government  by  injunction";  its  attempts 
at  the  polls  to  defeat  or  to  elect  legislators  and 
judges,  so  as  to  warp  the  law  or  its  interpretations 
(see  A.  F.  L.  Reports  1918  and  1919) ;  its  habit  of 
hiring  counsel  to  defend  union  men  arrested  for 
criminal  violence  (for  instance,  Mr.  Gompers  raised 
fifty  thousand  dollars  to  pay  Clarence  Darrows'  re- 
tainer in  defending  the  McNamaras,  the  notorious 
dynamiters  of  the  Los  Angeles  Times} ;  these  ac- 
tions speak  louder  than  words  to  attest  the  paying 
value,  if  not  the  absolute  necessity  of  terrorism,  in 
strikes.  As  Allan  Pinkerton  testified  in  a  Pennsyl- 
vania court  during  the  famous  "  Mollie  McGuire" 

[39] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

murder  trials,  a  generation  ago,  "  Organized  Labor 
is  organized  violence." 

There  is  no  need  to  go  back  a  generation  or  a 
day,  as  it  happens,  for  confirmation  of  Pinkerton's 
words.  As  I  write,  May  20,  comes  the  newspaper 
account  of  the  killing  —  it  looks  like  the  murder  — 
in  a  West  Virginia  coal  mining  town  of  several  mem- 
bers of  a  private  detective  force  employed  to  evict 
striking  union  miners  from  the  company's  houses. 
The  district  has  been  non-union,  and  there  has  been 
trouble  before  from  attempts  to  unionize  it.  But 
why  did  that  mining  company  feel  obliged  at  great 
expense  to  bring  in  armed  men  to  guard  its  prop- 
erty and  remove  from  its  premises  men  who  refused 
to  work  in  its  mines?  Why  was  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral called  on  to  put  the  coal  and  steel  regions  last 
fall  under  the  restraining  presence  of  the  United 
States  Army  and  General  Wood?  Why  was  the 
Governor  of  Kansas  and  of  Massachusetts  obliged 
to  call  out  state  troops,  and  the  Governor  of  Penn- 
sylvania to  summon  constabulary  this  year  and  last, 
during  coal  and  railway  strikes  —  to  name  but  the 
more  conspicuous  disturbances  of  recent  months? 

The  answer  is  always  the  same:  for  fear  of  riot 
resulting  from  strikes.  The  strikes  themselves  re- 
sult from  the  organization  of  labor,  which  results 
from  Messrs.  Gompers  et  al.  Q.  E.  D.  There  can 
be  nothing  accidental  about  so  constant  a  phenome- 
non. You  know  as  well  as  I  do,  and  as  the  public  is 
finding  out  at  last,  Mr.  Gompers  to  the  contrary  not- 
withstanding, that  Pinkerton  was  right,  when  he  said, 
"  Organized  Labor  is  organized  violence." 


[40] 


CHAPTER   VI 

"HUMAN  LABOR  NOT  A  COMMODITY  OF 
COMMERCE  " 

THIS  brings  us  to  consideration  of  another  recent 
discovery  of  Mr.  Gompers,  evolved  and  enunciated 
in  the  course  of  his  fight  against  our  judges  for  en- 
forcing the  laws  against  combination  in  restraint  of 
trade ;  namely,  the  principle  "  that  in  law  and  in  prac- 
tice it  should  be  held  that  the  labor  of  a  human  being 
is  not  a  commodity  or  article  of  commerce." 

This  rather  cryptic  principle  sets  forth  what  labor 
is  not,  —  but  does  not  define  what  it  is.  Mr.  Gom- 
pers succeeded  in  having  a  declaration  of  this  prin- 
ciple embodied  in  the  Clayton  Act  of  Congress  in 
1917  or  1918,  and  in  "Labor's  Bill  of  Rights"  in 
the  League  of  Nations  Treaty.  Its  intent  and  ap- 
plication are  somewhat  elucidated  in  a  further  pro- 
vision of  the  Clayton  Act,  also  sponsored  by  Mr. 
Gompers,  excepting  laborers  and  farmers  from  the 
guilt  of  and  penalties  established  for  combination  in 
restraint  of  trade,  imposed  on  all  other  classes  by 
the  common  law  and  the  Sherman  Act. 

Let  me  at  this  point  once  more  sharply  draw  the 
distinction  between  what  might  be  called  lawful  or 
negative  coercion  —  the  free  action  of  the  law  of 
supply  and  demand;  and  unlawful  or  positive  coer- 
cion—  combination  to  prevent  such  free  action. 

If  you  are  the  only  workmen  to  be  had,  and  you 
choose  to  strike,  I  simply  must  employ  you  on  your 
own  conditions  or  my  plant  must  be  idle.  I  am 

[41] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

coerced  all  right,  but  lawfully,  by  the  law  of  supply 
and  demand,  if  I  wish  to  operate. 

If,  however,  there  are  plenty  of  men  to  be  had 
and  you  strike,  but  scare  others  away  from  my  plant 
by  drawing  a  picket  line  around  it  and  threatening  to 
"knock  their  block  off"  if  they  try  to  pass,  again 
I  am  coerced,  but  this  time  unlawfully.  The  "  right 
to  strike,"  peacefully  to  quit  work,  does  not  in- 
clude the  right  to  force  or  scare  others  from  work- 
ing. This  is  a  free  country. 

A  free  people,  moreover,  has  the  right  to  protect 
itself.  Under  the  common  law,  the  noble  evolu- 
tion of  ages  of  self-government  and  respect  for  jus- 
tice, it  has  been  recognized  for  centuries  as  criminal 
and  against  public  policy  that  groups  of  men  should 
"  combine  "  against  the  people  in  restraint  of  trade, 
to  restrict  the  production  or  enhance  the  price  of 
food,  clothing,  or  other  commodities  of  commerce. 
It  was  apparent  that,  in  the  nature  of  things,  com- 
paratively few  of  us  are  engaged  in  supplying  any 
given  commodity  to  the  crowd  generally;  and  that 
by  conspiring  together  a  group  could,  and  in  fact 
did,  exact  unduly  high  prices  for  their  specialty  to 
their  own  unfair  advantage  over  the  community. 
The  common  law  therefore  rightly  prohibited  such 
conspiracy,  and  many  statutes  have  been  passed  in 
the  United  States  —  notoriously  the  Sherman  Law 
—  to  stop  it. 

At  the  very  beginning  of  trades-unionism  it  be- 
came evident  that  organizing  strikes  was  in  fact  con- 
spiracy to  limit  the  supply  and  fix  the  price  of  labor 
in  restraint  of  trade;  always  to  the  injury  of  the 
buyers  of  the  particular  commodity  produced  by  the 
labor,  and  frequently,  as  in  railway,  public  service, 
coal,  or  food  supply  strikes,  to  very  grave  injury  of 
the  public.  Employers  very  soon  began  invoking  the 

[42] 


LABOR   NOT  A   COMMODITY 

protection  of  the  courts  by  virtue  of  the  aforesaid 
laws;  and  a  series  of  decisions  of  both  British  and 
American  judiciary  have  established  that  laborers, 
like  merchants,  cannot  lawfully  conspire  together  to 
restrain  the  free  action  of  others,  even  by  acts  which 
might  be  perfectly  lawful  if  done  individually  in  the 
exercise  of  personal  liberty.  Such  acts  are,  for  in- 
stance, the  declaration  "we  don't  patronize,"  the 
establishment  of  a  picket  line,  etc.,  or  other  concerted 
action  or  conspiracy  in  restraint  of  free  labor  com- 
petition, or  free  operation  of  the  laws  of  supply  and 
demand. 

Mr.  Gompers  and  the  Federation  of  Labor  hav- 
ing been  beaten  in  the  courts  have  sought  relief 
from  the  penalty  of  the  law  in  politics.  (See  Re- 
ports of  the  A.  F.  L.  for  1918-1919.)  They  have 
threatened  judges  with  defeat  at  the  polls  for  de- 
cisions against  labor;  so  far  apparently  in  vain,  it  is 
pleasant  to  note.  With  Congress  they  have  done 
better,  as  it  has  obeyed  orders  in  passing  the  Adam- 
son  Law  and  the  Clayton  Act,  above  mentioned, 
which  last  excepts  labor  and  farmer  combinations, 
while  holding  all  the  rest  of  us  guilty  of  crime  if  we 
combine  to  restrain  trade. 

The  immediate  intent  of  the  declaration  that  the 
labor  of  a  human  being  is  not  in  law  or  in  practice  a 
commodity  or  article  of  commerce,  is  that  judges 
may  no  longer  enjoin  or  punish  picketing,  the  boy- 
cott, or  other  combinations  intended  to  cut  off  ma- 
terial or  labor  supply,  as  in  restraint  of  commerce  or 
trade. 

Of  course  they  are  so  meant  all  the  same.  For 
instance,  my  coal  dealer  may  not  lawfully  combine 
with  other  coal  dealers  to  restrain  trade  and  fix 
prices  of  coal,  and  I  can  enjoin  him  or  punish  him  in 
the  courts  for  so  doing. 

[43] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

But  under  the  Clayton  Law  the  coal  teamster's 
union  may  combine  to  stop  or  raise  the  price  of  coal 
delivery.  I  cannot  enjoin  or  punish  them  for  so 
doing,  because  human  labor  is  "  not  an  article  of 
commerce,"  and  therefore  stopping  teamsters'  work 
is  not  a  restraint  of  trade.  The  teamsters  are  not 
guilty.  Meantime,  what  becomes  of  me?  What 
use  is  it  to  buy  a  ton  of  coal  if  I  cannot  get  a  man  to 
put  it  in  my  cellar? 

What  is  to  prevent  the  coal  miners  or  the  railway 
brotherhoods  from  conspiring  at  any  time  to  stop 
coal  and  food  supply,  or  the  pumping  station  en- 
gineers from  stopping  water  supply,  for  thousands 
or  millions  of  fellow  citizens,  until  we  perish  with 
cold,  hunger,  or  thirst;  or  else  give  up  to  the  con- 
spirators such  cash  or  privilege,  or  both,  as  they 
choose  to  extort  —  all,  mind  you,  without  an  atom  of 
responsibility  or  risk  of  one  cent's  penalty  for  the 
colossal  cost  and  misery  entailed,  imposed  upon 
either  leaders  or  laborers? 

We  may  remark  in  passing  that  no  law  ever  passed 
by  servile  politicians  shows  more  contemptible  cow- 
ardice on  the  part  of  the  wfyrepresentatives  of  the 
people,  in  Congress  assembled  or  elsewhere,  than  the 
provisions  of  the  Clayton  Act  passed  at  the  request 
of  Mr.  Gompers;  yet  they  were  hardly  noticed  at 
the  time  by  you  gentlemen  of  the  press,  to  whom  I 
am  now  displaying  their  purport.  They  have  not 
as  yet  been  brought  to  test  by  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court.  When  that  test  comes,  though  I 
am  not  a  lawyer,  I  have  every  confidence  that  they 
will  be  invalidated  as  unconstitutional.  They  have 
already  been  ignored  by  the  United  States  Circuit 
Court,  Eighth  Circuit,  in  the  Coronada  Coal  Case. 
I  call  your  attention  to  the  A.  F.  L.  Report  for  1919, 
which  truly  says  of  it:  "  This  decision  is  far  reaching 

[44] 


LABOR   NOT  A   COMMODITY 

and  of  vital  importance  to  the  organized  labor  move- 
ment of  America.  If  the  decision  of  the  Circuit 
Court  is  affirmed  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  and  stands  as  a  principle  of  law,  the  existence 
of  every  national  and  international  union  is  endan- 
gered." (See  Report,  page  100.) 

The  decision  referred  to  awarded  a  verdict  of 
six  hundred  and  twenty-five  thousand  dollars  against 
the  United  Mine  Workers,  for  conspiracy  with  cer- 
tain unionized  mine  owners  to  interfere  with  the  pro- 
duction and  commerce  of  other  owners  who  followed 
a  non-union  policy,  by  means  of  strikes  and  attendant 
violence. 

It  is  absolutely  true,  as  the  Report  says,  that  "  the 
existence  of  every  national  union  is  endangered"  by 
this  decision.  Every  one  of  them  is,  and  always 
has  been,  guilty  of  conspiracy  to  interfere  with  pro- 
duction, attended  with  varying  degrees  of  breach  of 
law.  But  for  the  purposes  of  this  chapter  I  think 
the  reader  will  require  no  further  proof  of  the  de- 
liberate crookedness  and  irresponsibility  of  Mr. 
Gompers'  great  machine  than  reference  to  his  own 
1918  Report,  his  action  of  1918  in  procuring  by  the 
Clayton  Act  attempted  immunity  from  the  conse- 
quences of  crime ;  and  finally  the  following  quotation 
from  his  1919  Report  —  reciting  the  defenses  set  up 
in  the  Coronada  Case  by  Organized  Labor,  as 
follows : 

"  The  United  Mine  Workers  contended : 

"  ist.  That  our  unincorporated  labor-union  is  irresponsible 
in  the  eyes  of  the  law,  and  cannot  be  held  in  damages  for  the 
acts  of  its  members. 

"  2nd.  That  the  Bache-Denman  Strike  and  alleged  riot 
was  a  purely  local  affair,  with  which  the  international  organ- 
ization of  the  mine  workers  had  nothing  to  do. 

"  3rd.    That  the  union  rules  forbade  violence  by  the  mem- 

[45] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

bers,  and  that  if  members  of  the  union  had  disobeyed  these 
rules  the  union  was  not  responsible." 

A  perfect  example  of  "  pleading  the  baby  act,"  is 
it  not? 

NOTE.  Since  the  foregoing  was  written,  a  very  interesting  case  of  re- 
straint of  strike  by  injunction  has  developed  at  the  works  of  the  United 
Shoe  Machinery  Company  at  Beverly,  Mass.  The  unions  are  obeying 
the  injunction,  outwardly  at  least,  but  are  considering,  as  I  write  this 
note,  calling  a  general  strike  of  other  unions  in  other  industries,  as  a  pro- 
test against  the  court  action  in  this  case. 

It  is  cited  at  some  length  in  a  subsequent  chapter  on  Collective  Bar- 
gaining. 

On  June  20,  1920,  a  very  important  case  was  decided  in  the  Amalga- 
mated-Clothing-Workers  Michaels-Stern  &  Co.  litigation  at  Roches 
growing  out  of  the  attempt  of  the  Amalgamated  to  shut  the  United 
Garment  Workers  (the  union  affiliated  with  the  A.  F.  L.)  out  of  the 
Michaels-Stern  shop  by  force  and  violence.  The  court  upheld  the  right 
of  the  Amalgamated  to  organize  the  shop  against  the  other  union, 
but  not  the  right  to  force  things  by  combination  and  violence.  Heavy 
damages  were  awarded  the  employers  (who  apparently  had  made  a  col- 
lective bargain  with  the  United  Garment  Workers)  against  the  Amalga- 
mated, notwithstanding  the  Clayton  Act.  The  individual  members  of 
the  union  were  not  held  liable,  however. 

The  decision  will  not  be  welcome  to  Organized  Labor,  nevertheless; 
it  cuts  too  many  ways.  Union  funds  were  held  responsible,  and  the  acts 
of  a  labor-combination  were  not  shielded  from  criminality  by  the  Clayton 
Act. 


[46] 


CHAPTER   VII 

CENTRALIZED    LABOR    CONTROL.      CENSOR- 
SHIP   OF   THE    PRESS 

ABSOLUTELY  centralized,  militant  control  of  all 
labor,  and  eventually  of  government,  in  the  hands  of 
a  small  compact  group,  so  far  dominated  by  himself, 
has  been  Mr.  Gompers'  most  conspicuous  and  con- 
sistent policy  since  the  foundation  of  the  A.  F.  L. 
forty  years  ago.  For  proof  of  this  see  the  oft- 
quoted  Report  of  the  A.  F.  L.  for  any  year  (say 
1919,  at  pages  xxviii  to  xxxii)  showing  how  every 
detail  of  vital  action  of  the  local  unions,  though 
based  upon  referendum  vote  in  most  cases,  is  subject 
to  ultimate  control  of  the  Executive  Council  of  the 
Federation  (see  also  page  447).  The  diagram  on 
page  63  of  the  Report  is  a  forcible  visual  presen- 
tation of  this  centralization  of  power,  and  shows 
presumably  its  evolution  through  years  of  consistent 
application  of  the  principle  "  all  for  one,  one  for 
all"  (diagram  reproduced  supra,  Chapter  III). 

We  Americans  are  so  jealous  of  centralized  power 
in  our  politics  that  a  mere  reading  of  this  Report 
ought  to  make  us  react  vigorously  against  the  same 
evil  in  our  industry.  That  it  is  an  evil  of  the  first 
magnitude  appears  more  disastrously  from  day  to 
day  as  the  newspapers  record  current  illustrations 
of  it.  Gompers  and  Company  have  but  one  ob- 
ject and  always  the  same,  to  force  settlement  of  all 
labor  matters  into  collective  central  control,  ofttimes 
through  governmental  mediation  or  arbitration;  be- 

[47] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

cause  political  pressure  comes  cheaper  and  gives 
better  results  than  long-drawn  strikes.  Certainly 
they  have  got  the  country  to  the  point  where  the 
President,  Congress,  the  Governor,  the  Legislature, 
the  Mayor,  the  City  Council,  one  or  all  of  them, 
expect  to  be  called  in  to  mediate  or  force  settlement 
of  a  constantly  more  stubborn  succession  of  strikes, 
contrived  by  ever  growing  and  more  rapacious 
unions,  always  at  the  cost  of  the  public.  It  would  be 
ridiculous,  were  it  not  so  outrageous,  that  our  over- 
worked national,  state,  and  local  executives  are  thus 
forced  to  waste  time,  meddling  between  buyer  and 
seller  of  labor.  It  is  perfectly  plain  that  it  is  enor- 
mously profitable  to  Gompers  and  Company  to  keep 
buyer  and  seller  of  labor  in  continual  hot  water,  and 
consequently  that  political  meddling  will  always  be 
called  for,  yet  never  yield  permanent  results  in  the 
way  of  peace. 

I  imagine  that  in  organizing  the  Federation  Mr. 
Gompers  took  the  unions  as  he  found  them,  carpen- 
ters, blacksmiths,  plumbers,  etc.,  each  trade  by  itself 
organized  into  local  unions;  first  integrating  say  the 
local  carpenters  into  a  national  organization,  then 
the  blacksmiths,  etc.,  recognizing  the  autonomy  of 
each  trade.  Probably  he  had  to  do  so,  and  to  respect 
the  power  of  each  leader  over  his  own  craft.  Then 
he  federated  these  national  unions  into  a  national 
federation,  with  local  federations  and  departments 
to  cover  various  local  and  jurisdictional  relations,  I 
fancy,  that  are  immaterial  here.  This  mode  of 
unionizing  by  trades  extends  each  national  union 
horizontally,  like  a  great  spider  web,  across  all  the 
industries,  however  diverse,  which  employ  members 
of  the  same  handicrafts. 

For  instance,  a  typewriter  factory  I  once  con- 
trolled was  suddenly  "  organized,"  and  I  found  I  had 

[48] 


CENTRALIZED   CONTROL 

to  deal  with  six  unions  —  blacksmiths,  machinists, 
screw  machine  men,  metal  workers,  polishers,  japan- 
ners.  The  same  unions,  and  others,  had  members  at 
work  in  a  neighboring  ice  machine  factory,  a  saw 
factory,  a  reaper  works,  an  electric  switchboard 
works,  etc.  So,  when  strikes  were  called,  my  settle- 
ment was  tied  into  settlements  with  all  these  in  a 
way  that  created  an  impossible  situation  for  me.  It 
will  readily  be  seen,  however,  that  this  arrangement 
is  positively  ideal  for  throwing  all  the  settlements 
with  all  the  factories  into  the  control  of  the  Chicago 
Federation  of  Labor  —  thoroughly  centralizing  it. 
Not  one  of  the  factories  could  quietly  settle  with  its 
own  men  without  interference  from  the  Federation, 
because,  the  latter  said,  of  settlements  pending  with 
others.  Of  course  this  magnified  the  influence  and 
importance  of  the  officials  of  the  Chicago  Federa- 
tion. Extend  the  same  autonomous  trade  organiza- 
tion over  great  national  industries  like  steel,  coal, 
and  railways,  and  you  hugely  magnify  the  power  and 
importance  of  the  American  Federation  officials. 
They  will  never  voluntarily  throw  away  one  atom  of 
that  power  and  importance. 

The  unions  are  practically  forced,  in  order  to 
magnify  the  value  of  unionization,  get  in  more  mem- 
bers, increase  their  strength,  and  collect  more  dues, 
to  deny  every  right  to  the  non-union  workman  of  the 
same  trade.  Union  men  must  combine  against  him, 
refuse  to  work  with  him,  keep  him  out  of  a  job,  call 
him  and  his  family  "  scabs,"  slug  him  when  the  time 
comes,  if  a  little  slugging  seems  advisable. 

Rival  unions  in  the  same  trade  are  not  permissible. 
Every  union  must  be  "  chartered "  by  the  national 
body  of  the  same  trade,  or  be  "outlawed"  by  the 
latter,  which  refuses  to  work  with  "  outlaws."  The 
Federation,  for  instance,  outlaws  the  I.  W.  W.  and 

[49] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

will  have  no  work  or  dealings  with  it.  It  can  be 
readily  seen  that  Mr.  Gompers  and  his  lieutenants 
would  rapidly  lose  control  and  prestige  if  there  were 
large  and  powerful  independent  unions  to  compete 
for  work,  wages,  and  political  favors  with  the  Feder- 
ation unions.  Precisely  the  same  motive  evidently 
influences  their  attitude  to  State  Socialism  and 
Bolshevism.  Each  would  abolish  Capitalism,  each 
would  set  up  a  form  of  government  that  would  swal- 
low up  "  Labor."  The  occupation  of  labor  leader, 
the  handling  of  millions  of  labor  union  funds,  the 
near-control  of  vast  industries,  and  the  marshaling 
of  thousands  of  votes  would  vanish  at  once.  Mr. 
Gompers'  great  creation,  the  Federation  of  Labor, 
would  disappear  —  unless  he  could  expand  it  quickly 
enough  to  control  a  majority  instead  of  less  than  a 
tenth  of  the  electorate  and  capture  the  State.  Even 
so,  it  would  disappear  in  the  State,  and  other  in- 
terests than  those  of  labor  would  develop  and  create 
a  situation  harder  to  control. 

For  it  may  be  remarked  in  passing,  that  in  union- 
ization, laborers  are  actuated  by  one  main  and  con- 
stant motive  instilled  by  their  leaders  —  namely, 
more  pay  for  less  work — whose  simplicity  makes 
labor  politics  almost  child's  play  compared  to  the 
man's  job  of  party  politics,  with  its  countless  cross 
currents,  shifting  issues,  racial  and  regional  causes. 

But  to  come  back  to  Mr.  Gompers :  In  order  to 
hold  the  union  men  firmly,  to  keep  absolute  control, 
he  has  always  fought  the  "  open  shop,"  and  opposes 
every  form  of  individualism,  of  wages  based  upon 
output,  —  such  as  piecework,  bonus  or  premium 
plans,  "scientific  management,"  "speeding  up,"  — 
that  is,  every  means  by  which  a  strong  and  skill- 
ful workman  can  individually  earn  much  more,  can 
pile  up  a  better  output  and  pay  check,  than  a  slow 

[50] 


CENTRALIZED   CONTROL 

man  beside  him,  because  such  extra  earning  tends 
to  make  the  fast  man  independent,  unwilling  to 
strike,  —  to  tie  him  to  his  employer  and  his  job. 
Gompers  fights  for  the  same  reason  every  form  of 
profit-sharing,  of  assisting  laborers  to  save  and  buy 
stock  in  the  business,  as  the  Steel  Corporation  does. 
He  is  said,  though  this  I  cannot  vouch  for,  even  to 
oppose  laborers'  ownership  of  homes  near  factories 
in  country  towns,  because  that  too  ties  them  to  their 
job,  makes  them  slow  to  strike,  —  too  peaceful  and 
industrious. 

Again,  he  fights  employers  who  take  signed  con- 
tracts from  their  men  for  a  term  of  employment, 
because  that  ties  them.  He  opposes  direct  confer- 
ence between  employers  and  their  own  men  before 
or  in  case  of  difficulty  between  them,  demanding 
always  that  union  officials  alone  shall  represent  the 
men  in  conference.  He  fights  compulsory  arbitra- 
tion, as  under  the  new  Labor  Court  in  Kansas,  which 
can  overrule  the  Federation's  call  for  a  strike.  He 
fights  the  recent  movement  among  employers  to  en- 
courage workmen  in  each  establishment  to  elect, 
as  an  independent  unit,  not  tangled  into  unions,  a 
"  shop  committee,"  that  can  meet  and  confer  reg- 
ularly with  the  management  on  all  questions  of 
hours,  wages,  conditions,  and  practice;  thus  afford- 
ing the  so-called  personal  contact,  which  tends  to 
promote  friendly  relations  and  confidence  and  head 
off  strife  between  employers  and  employees. 

Most  of  all,  Mr.  Gompers  fights  uncompromis- 
ingly all  legislation  that  in  any  way  limits  his  cen- 
tralized power.  For  instance,  he  quit  the  first 
Industrial  Conference  called  by  President  Wilson 
because  the  employers'  group  would  not  recognize 
his  Federation  as  sole  bargainer  for  labor,  but  stood 
firm  for  the  "  open  shop,"  and  the  right  to  bargain 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

direct  with  any  laborer  who  might  choose  to  deal 
that  way. 

He  is  now  fighting  the  recommendations  of  the 
second  Industrial  Conference  because  they  would 
unionize  each  establishment  by  itself  as  an  industry 
(not  tied  by  numerous  federated  trade-unions  to 
other  establishments),  and  at  the  same  time  would 
create  shop  committees  for  frequent  conference  and 
friendly  relations  with  management,  touching  all 
questions  of  wages,  hours,  conditions,  etc.  All  cul- 
tivation of  friendly  relations  Gompers  considers  a 
menace  to  the  labor  unions  —  as  indeed  it  is  to  his 
kind  of  centrally  controlled  unionism,  which  is  in- 
tended to  keep  the  laborers  hostile  and  on  strike. 
Mr.  Gompers  objects  also  to  the  conference's  plan 
for  prevention  of  strikes  by  requiring  submission  of 
differences  to  regional  labor  courts  of  adjustment, 
because  he  says  such  machinery  is  superfluous.  He 
says  that  his  Federation  of  Labor  is  all  the  machinery 
that  is  needed  for  the  preservation  of  industrial 
peace,  and  that  it  "  functions  perfectly,"  whenever 
the  pig-headed  employers  do  not  refuse  its  kind 
offices.  The  lion  lies  down  with  the  lamb  —  inside! 

Of  course,  if  the  employers  simply  obeyed  when- 
ever the  Federation  spoke,  there  would  be  industrial 
peace,  deep  peace,  no  wage  controversies,  and  prob- 
ably not  much  wage  to  controvert.  Mr.  Gompers 
runs  true  to  form  for  centralized  and  militant  con- 
trol of  labor.  He  does  not  really  want  peace,  but 
war  and  conquest ;  organized  labor  always  conqueror, 
himself  and  his  group  always  dictators. 

I  hope  I  have  shown  above  that,  in  their  very 
nature,  these  great  national  and  international  strike 
machines,  the  local  Federations  and  the  American 
Federation,  tying  many  thousands  of  unions  together 
in  colossal  centralization,  are  in  practice  absolutely 

[52] 


CENTRALIZED   CONTROL 

incompatible  with  quick  settlement  or  permanent 
peace.  If  further  proof  of  this  be  needed,  the  ac- 
counts of  any  important  strikes  in  the  daily  papers  — 
whether  purely  local,  such  as  the  Boston  police  strike, 
or  the  current  (March  31,  1920)  New  York  Ferry 
strike;  or  widespread,  such  as  the  1919  steel  and 
coal  strikes  —  will  furnish  it.  They  sooner  or  later 
disclose  Mr.  Gompers'  interference,  intriguing  al- 
ways with  the  political  powers,  local  or  national,  to 
force  employers  to  some  mode  of  settlement  involv- 
ing recognition  and  participation  of  union  machinery, 
always  repudiating  direct  settlement  with  the  men, 
as  individuals. 

The  great  steel  strike,  for  instance,  was  called  to 
force  Judge  Gary  to  confer,  not  with  his  own  men 
as  he  was  ready  to  do,  but  with  Messrs.  Fitzpatrick 
and  Foster,  for  twenty-six  international,  federated 
unions,  claiming  to  act  for  all  labor  in  every  steel 
works  in  America.  Verily  a  magnificent  claim,  only 
disproved  by  the  dead  failure  of  the  whole  huge 
bluff  as  soon  as  maintenance  of  law  and  order  by 
General  Wood  permitted  a  "  show-down  "  ! 

As  I  am  writing  these  words  (April  4,  1920), 
New  York  press  dispatches  tell  of  the  Jersey  Ferry- 
boat strike,  called  because  the  Erie  Railroad  pro- 
poses to  sell  some  unemployed  boats  to  a  private 
owner  who  may  possibly  refuse  to  be  bound  by  the 
Adamson  eight-hour  law,  as  the  railways  are;  a 
"  grievance  "  connected  in  the  endless  chain  fashion 
beloved  of  labor  leaders  with  some  dispute  between 
the  United  Fruit  Company  and  the  longshoremen; 
a  snarl  likely,  so  say  Mr.  Maher  and  Mr.  Healey, 
to  develop  into  a  national  strike  of  six  million  trades- 
unionists,  plans  for  which,  says  the  union  spokesman, 
will  be  submitted  to  Mr.  Gompers  and  the  Executive 
Council  "  for  guarantees  that  the  eight-hour  day 

[53] 


will  not  be  done  away  with."  This  explains  New 
York  dispatches  of  March  31,  which  tell  us  that 
"  an  effort  will  be  made  in  Washington  tomorrow  to 
end  the  coastwise  strike,  when  representatives  of 
both  factions  will  meet  in  the  office  of  Secretary 
of  Labor  Wilson." 

Compare  with  the  above  Chicago  dispatches  of 
same  date,  viz. :  "  Nelson  and  Spangler,  department 
o£  labor  mediators,  arrived  today  from  Washington 
to  attempt  settlement  of  the  strike  of  nine  hundred 
members  of  the  Live  Stock  Handlers  Union,  which 
has  thrown  nearly  ten  thousand  men  out  of  work. 
Meantime,  stock  normally  destined  for  Chicago  is 
routed  to  other  packing  points.  Chicago  packers 
usually  pay  out  $3,000,000  a  day  at  this  time  of  the 
year  for  live  stock,  and  this  business  has  stopped. 
A  shortage  of  fresh  meat  has  brought  about  a  sharp 
advance  in  prices.  No  pork  was  offered  in  today's 
market." 

Always  Washington,  Washington,  Washington! 
And  in  the  background  or  foreground,  as  the  case 
may  be,  always  Gompers,  Gompers,  Gompers ! 

A  few  days  later  Chicago  dispatches  of  April  5 
report  several  thousand  "  insurgent "  switchmen  on 
strike,  likely  to  cause  a  shutdown  next  day  of  pack- 
ing houses  employing  fifty  thousand  men,  but  add 
that  the  Brotherhood  of  Railway  Trainmen  will 
shortly  discipline  the  insurgents  and  permit  the  rail- 
roads to  run  again. 

(By  the  way,  what  fun  it  must  be  to  try  to  run  a 
packing  house  in  Chicago,  with  cattle-feed  strikers 
on  one  hand,  switchmen  strikers  on  the  other,  the 
Attorney  General  trust-busting  in  front  and  profiteer- 
punching  behind,  the  people  damning  you  because 
you  don't  keep  the  price  of  beef  down,  and  the 
farmers  because  you  don't  keep  it  up !) 

[54] 


CENTRALIZED   CONTROL 

So,  not  long  ago  the  A.  F.  L.  was  disciplining  the 
"insurgent"  or  "outlaw"  printers  in  New  York. 
As  far  as  these  efforts  of  the  great  international 
unions  go  to  carry  out  their  "  collective  bargains," 
they  constitute  the  one  commendable  deed  of  Organ- 
ized Labor  I  have  been  able  to  cite.  But,  unfor- 
tunately, even  the  Federation  does  not  seem  able  to 
enforce  discipline  if  its  orders  are  momentarily  un- 
popular with  the  men  concerned.  That  was  the  case 
also  in  the  recent  soft  coal  and  steel  strikes. 

But  why  pile  proof  on  proof  of  centralization  and 
its  evils?  The  great  net  fact  that  stands  out  from 
the  whole  huge  welter  of  confusing  evidence  is,  that 
the  greater  the  centralization  and  federation  of  the 
unions,  the  bigger  and  costlier  the  strike,  the  more 
confused  and  conflicting  the  interests  involved,  and 
the  slower  and  less  lasting  the  peace  that  eventually 
is  bound  to  come  whenever  the  workingmen  have 
spent  their  money  and  are  forced  to  earn  again  or 
starve;  when,  in  other  words,  the  moment  arrives 
for  the  law  of  supply  and  demand,  which  Mr.  Gom- 
pers  says  no  longer  applies  to  labor,  quietly  to  re- 
sume control. 

That  law  is  the  only  final  arbiter,  the  only  just 
and  impartial  judge,  the  only  real  friend  of  the 
workingmen,  the  only  foundation  of  industrial  peace 
and  commercial  prosperity,  if  the  evidence  we  have 
before  us  can  be  depended  on. 

An  amusing  conflict  between  Mr.  Gompers'  theory 
and  practice  in  centralized  control  of  all  labor 
cropped  out  during  the  joint  debate  on  the  Kansas 
Industrial  Court  between  Governor  Allen  of  Kansas 
and  Mr.  Gompers,  staged  at  Carnegie  Hall,  New 
York,  May  28. 

Mr.  Gompers,  as  always,  vigorously  asserted  the 
unlimited  right  of  the  laborer  to  strike,  "  the  right  of 

[55] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

a  freeman  to  dispose  of  himself,  of  his  labor  and  his 
labor  power."  Governor  Allen  quietly  asked  him 
"who  then  had  the  divine  right  to  forbid  the  switch- 
men to  strike  in  the  recent  "  outlaw  strike,"  who 
then  "controlled  this  divine  right  to  strike"?  Mr. 
Gompers  replied  he  would  like  to  answer  if  he  had 
time." 

Voices  from  the  audience  shouted  "You  can't." 
Governor  Allen's  questions  are  abundantly  answered, 
however,  in  the  Laws  of  the  Federation  of  Labor. 
(See  the  oft-cited  Report  for  1919,  pages  xxviii  to 
xxxii.) 

Another  illustration  of  autocratic  centralized  con- 
trol of  Mr.  Gompers'  Federation,  and  this  a  most 
important  one,  occurs  in  the  testimony  of  Mr.  E.  J. 
McCone  of  the  Buffalo  Commercial  —  a  paper  that 
runs  non-union  —  before  the  Senate  News  Print  In- 
vestigating Committee,  at  Washington,  May  3.  He 
charged  that  the  International  Typographical  Union 
"  through  censorship  by  the  shop-chapel  kept  articles 
unfavorable  to  Organized  Labor  out  of  most  news- 
papers." He  said  that  his  own  paper  and  the  New 
York  Times  were  the  only  two  Eastern  papers  to 
print  certain  parts  of  Judge  Gary's  testimony  before 
the  Steel  Strike  Investigation  Senate  Committee,  and 
that  the  Buffalo  News  had,  after  putting  the  story  in 
type,  been  forced  to  change  it  under  pressure  from 
the  shop-chapel.  He  further  cited  the  oath,  binding 
members  of  this  union,  swearing  "fidelity  to  my 
union  and  its  members,  above  any  other  obligation, 
social,  political,  religious,  fraternal  or  otherwise." 

You,  gentlemen  of  the  press,  will  know  whether 
this  serious  charge  is  true,  and  it  will  be  a  matter  of 
honor  with  you  to  vindicate  the  freedom  of  the  press. 
I  call  your  serious  attention  to  Mr.  McCone's  ad- 
dress before  the  1920  Convention  of  the  National 

[56] 


CENTRALIZED   CONTROL 

Metal  Trades  Association,  in  which  he  repeats,  with 
great  detail  of  supporting  evidence,  the  charge  that 
the  press  is  almost  solidly  muzzled  by  the  Typo- 
graphical Union  on  the  important  subject  of  the 
"closed  shop";  that  since  1917  no  article  criticizing 
the  closed  shop  or  advocating  the  "  open  shop"  has 
appeared  in  any  American  newspaper  except  the 
Buffalo  Commercial,  the  Los  Angeles  Times,  the 
Arizona  Gazette,  and  the  Hamilton  (Can.)  Daily 
News. 

In  view  of  Mr.  McCone's  very  definite  assertions, 
it  will  be  exceedingly  interesting  to  note  whether 
the  press  will  find  anything  of  interest  at  this  time, 
or  worthy  of  public  discussion,  in  this  book,  which  I 
am  so  directly  presenting  to  your  notice. 


[57] 


CHAPTER   VIII 

FAILURE    OF    ORGANIZATION   TO    BENEFIT 
WORKERS 

UNTIL  of  late  the  American  people  have  been  and 
probably  still  are  friendly  to  organized  labor,  ac- 
cepting as  well  founded  Mr.  Gompers'  perpetual 
assertion  that  "there  are  no  means  whereby  the 
workers  can  obtain  and  maintain  fair  wages  except 
through  trade-union  effort"  (see  Report,  page  72). 
Supposed  humanitarian  purpose  has  justified  him 
in  the  eyes  of  many  thousands  of  excellent  people 
(especially  clergymen)  who  neither  create  industries 
nor  employ  labor,  and  who  perhaps  take  at  par  his 
declaration  (same  report  and  page)  that  "there  is 
in  fact  no  such  condition  as  an  iron  law  of  wages, 
based  upon  a  natural  law  of  supply  and  demand. 
Conditions  in  commerce  and  industry  .  .  .  influ- 
enced by  combinations  and  trusts,  have  effectively  de- 
stroyed the  theory  of  a  natural  law  of  supply  and 
demand,  as  formulated  by  doctrinaire  economists." 

As  a  matter  of  fact  there  could  be  no  more  colos- 
sal demonstration  of  the  general  falsity  of  the  above 
assertions  than  the  actual  course  of  wages  and  prices 
of  commodities  during  the  forty  years  of  Mr.  Gom- 
pers' presidency  of  the  A.  F.  L.  To  put  the  facts 
bluntly,  the  old  law  of  supply  and  demand,  sup- 
posed by  him  to  have  been  destroyed  by  the  Trusts 
and  Combinations  (and  which  indeed  was  vainly 
assailed  by  all  of  them,  especially  by  the  Labor 
Trust),  has  been  on  the  job  every  minute,  and  has 
proved  itself  to  be  a  royal  paymaster  of  the  non- 

[58] 


FAILURE   TO   BENEFIT   WORKERS 

union  man.  Meantime  "  trades  union  effort,"  sup- 
posed to  be  the  only  salvation  of  the  union  man, 
has  proved  itself  his  rank  enemy. 

I  will  not  attempt  here,  for  lack  of  space,  to  in- 
sert a  comparative  tabulation  of  wages  and  prices 
sufficiently  exhaustive  to  cover  all  crafts  and  locali- 
ties throughout  the  United  States  during  the  last 
forty  years,  but  will  refer  the  reader,  for  pre-war 
averages,  to  the  valuable  United  States  Senate  Com- 
mission Report  on  Course  of  Prices  and  Wages 
from  1900  to  1907,  to  the  nearest  United  States 
Employment  Bureau  office  for  current  wages,  and 
to  any  grocer  for  current  prices.  The  Department 
of  Commerce  and  Labor  has  published  also  many 
bulletins  on  the  course  of  wages  and  prices  which 
it  does  not  seem  to  me  necessary  to  wade  through. 
Simpler  and  quite  as  conclusive  proof  is  at  hand,  as 
follows : 

The  Senate  Report  referred  to  above  clearly  es- 
tablishes the  fact  that  between  1900  and  1907,  while 
leading  commodities  advanced  in  price  17  per  cent, 
unorganized  farm  labor  advanced  63  per  cent;  half 
organized  hosiery  labor  advanced  40  per  cent; 
highly  organized  railway  labor  advanced  33  per 
cent;  best  organized  locomotive  engineers,  20  per 
cent.  The  same  report  showed  union  carpenters 
earning  different  wages  in  different  cities,  from  $18 
in  Louisville  to  $27.50  in  Chicago;  and  union  type- 
setters from  43  cents  per  hour  in  Philadelphia  to 
80  cents  in  San  Francisco.  In  other  words,  non- 
union labor  fared  best;  while  union  labor  fared 
worse  and  worse  in  proportion  to  degree  of  union- 
ization—  the  strongest  union  faring  worst;  while 
members  of  the  same  unions,  at  the  same  time,  but 
in  different  cities,  drew  widely  different  pay  for 
same  work,  determined  by  local  demand  and  supply. 

[59] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

Now  I  venture  to  say  that  the  reader  will  find 
precisely  the  same  situation  today,  if  he  will  check 
up  for  himself  wages  in  a  few  typical  trades,  as  I 
have  done.  For  instance,  Mr.  Stone,  Grand  Chief 
of  the  Locomotive  Engineers  Brotherhood,  sent  me 
recently  a  detailed  comparison  of  engineers'  wages 
with  those  of  1880,  with  the  following  comments 
in  answer  to  my  remark  that  wages  had  doubled  in 
the  forty  intervening  years:  "Not  only  have  the 
rates  not  been  doubled,  but  the  percentage  of  in- 
crease given  to  locomotive  engineers  is  very  small 
when  compared  with  the  wages  now  paid  to  other 
classes  demanding  any  degree  of  skill.  .  .  .  The 
locomotive  engineer  today  is  the  lowest  paid  worker, 
when  the  skill  and  responsibility  required  of  him  is 
taken  into  consideration."  Mr.  Stone  was  quite 
right. 

Plumbers  just  now  receive  90  to  100  cents  an 
hour  as  against  35  to  40  cents  in  1880.  Carpenters 
about  the  same,  say  $36  per  week.  Farm  laborers 
get,  according  to  the  Boston  Herald  of  May  19, 
in  Maine  and  Rhode  Island  $65  to  $75  a  month 
and  board,  against  $12  to  $15  in  1880;  common 
laborers,  46  to  50  cents  an  hour,  against  11^/2.  to 
15  cents  an  hour  in  1880,  —  current  figures  from 
United  States  Employment  Office  in  Boston  three 
months  ago.  Cooks  and  housemaids  are  offered  in 
Boston  papers  now  $14  to  $16,  and  in  the  country 
$10  to  $12  a  week,  as  against  $3  and  $4  a  week  in 
1880.  The  plumbers  and  carpenters  are  well  union- 
ized; farm,  common,  and  domestic  labor  not  at  all. 

In  short,  wages  have  risen  universally.  But  in  the 
A.  F.  L.  Report  for  1919,  pages  47  to  61,  two  hun- 
dred and  twenty-five  union  leaders  claim  the  credit 
for  the  rise  as  "  the  result  of  organization"  giving 
figures;  and  their  constituents  doubtless  believe  their 

[60] 


FAILURE   TO   BENEFIT  WORKERS 


claim.  The  figures  are,  however,  so  variously  made 
up  as  to  be  incapable  of  tabulation  for  averages.  I 
have  roughly  averaged  the  increases,  for  which 
thirty-one  out  of  the  one  hundred  and  ten  big  inter- 
national unions  claim  credit;  apparently,  and  in  some 
cases  stated  to  be,  the  totals  since  1881. 

WAGE  INCREASES  CLAIMED 


Bill  Posters 

Broom  and  Whisk  Mkrs 

Railway  Carmen 

Carvers 

Diamond  Cutters 

Chemical  Workers 

Elevator  Men 

Marine  Engineers 

Stationary  Engineers 

Granite  Workers 

Hatters 

Hodcarriers 

Laundry  Workers 

Marble  Workers 

Metal  Workers 

Painters  and  Decorators 

Pattern  Makers 

Paving  Cutters 

Plumbers 

Print  Cutters 

Sulphite  Paper  Workers 

Quarrymen 

Roofers 

Seamen 

Tobacco  Workers 

Tunnel  Workers 

Upholsterers 

Wire  Weavers 

Cabinet  Makers 

Cement  Workers 

City  Employees 


3 1  trades,  total  present  wage 
7618 


Present  wage  equivalent  to 


Per  cent. 
200 
200 
225 
233 
235 
350 
320 
300 
300 

220 
240 
480 
2OO 
2OO 
242 
22O 
457 
157 
22$ 

150 
350 
235 
250 
400 
I65 
2OO 
225 
I3O 
I63 
171 
175 


76l8 


Present  wages,  average  * =  nearly  246%  of  old  wages 

say  of  1880 


NOTE.  These  figures  are  necessarily  approximate,  because  the  claims 
of  the  reports  are  approximate  and  variously  made  up.  The  foregoing 
are  arrived  at  by  comparing  present  with  old  wage  rates,  where  given, 
and  figuring  the  percentage  of  increase.  Calling  the  old  rates  100  per- 
cent, the  present  average  rates  show  a  gain  of  246  —  100  =  146  %  gain. 

[61] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

Gains  run  from  30  per  cent  for  the  wire  weavers 
(probably  a  very  recent  union)  to  380  per  cent  for 
hodcarriers,  and  359  per  cent  for  pattern  makers 
(which  last  two  look  doubtful  on  their  face,  but  I 
accept  them).  Altogether  they  average  an  increase 
of  146  per  cent;  and  if  they  fairly  represent  union 
labor  it  is  drawing  today  about  two  and  one  half 
times  the  gross  wages  it  drew,  let  us  say,  in  1881, 
when  the  Federation  was  formed.  Recent  inquiry 
at  the  United  States  Employment  Office  in  Boston 
confirms  this  average;  and  the  union  claims  may  be 
accepted  as  correct  as  to  the  ratio  of  increase  se- 
cured. Hours  of  labor  have  shortened  everywhere, 
but  to  about  the  same  extent,  whether  on  union  or 
non-union  jobs. 

Now  note  that  farm  labor,  strictly  unorganized 
and  five  times  as  numerous  as  all  union  labor,  has 
risen  to  four  and  five  times  the  wage  of  1880;  and 
that  common  labor,  far  more  numerous  than  union 
labor  and  entirely  non-union,  floating  around  at  all 
sorts  of  work,  has  risen  to  three  and  a  half  and  four 
times  old  pay.  Domestic  and  commercial  labor,  un- 
organized, twice  as  numerous  as  union  labor,  has 
likewise  risen  three  or  four  to  one.  No  unions  exist 
to  boast  of  these  gains,  which  far  exceed  those  of 
union  labor;  but  they  are  matters  of  common  knowl- 
edge. Any  man  can  verify  for  himself,  by  ask- 
ing any  elderly  day  laborer,  housemaid,  cook,  farm 
hand,  carpenter,  plumber,  or  locomotive  engineer, 
what  wages  are  now  and  what  they  were  when  he 
or  she  was  young,  and  will  realize  then  that  wages 
in  those  steam-and-water-tight  unions  lag  far  behind 
non-union  wages  in  relative  increase. 

Meantime  post  of  living  has  substantially  doubled 
(see  Department  of  Labor  Reports),  so  that  all 
labor,  union  or  not,  is  now  better  off  than  ever  be- 

[62] 


FAILURE   TO   BENEFIT   WORKERS 

fore,  as  appears  from  huge  savings  bank  deposit 
increases  and  popular  extravagance.  Clerical  and 
professional  workers,  teachers,  and  the  fixed-small- 
salary  classes,  alone  are  worse  off  than  of  old;  not 
because  they  are  not  unionized,  but  because  the  de- 
mand for  their  services  does  not  double  up  with  in- 
tensive business  activity.  May  I  emphasize,  gentlemen 
of  the  press,  the  fact  that  totally  unorganized,  non- 
union domestic,  farm,  and  common  labor  is  now 
drawing  three  to  three  and  a  half  times  the  wages 
of  1880,  while  the  most  highly  unionized  laborer, 
the  locomotive  engineer,  draws  but  two  or  two  and 
a  half  times  as  much;  and  such  well-unionized  labor 
as  that  of  plumbers  and  carpenters  draws  only  two 
and  a  quarter  to  two  and  a  half  the  old  figures. 
May  I  point  out  that  those  three  classes  of  labor 
(common,  farm,  and  domestic)  are  the  great  classes, 
aggregating  twenty-seven  million  unorganized  work- 
ers, against  around  four  millions  organized;  and 
that  their  only  friend  is  the  law  of  supply  and  de- 
mand, which  Gompers  says  is  dead  and  buried. 
That  no  union  has  helped  them,  and  they  have  had 
to  do  without  the  "  only  means  whereby  the  workers 
can  obtain  and  maintain  fair  wages";  but  that 
nevertheless  for  forty  years  they  have  done  rela- 
tively better  and  better  than  union  labor  has  done  — 
doing  best  of  all  during  the  extraordinary  upheaval 
of  industrial  conditions  caused  by  the  great  war. 

Verily,  Mr.  Gompers  may  rail  at  the  law  of 
supply  and  demand,  but  it  will  continue  in  busi- 
ness at  the  old  stand;  and  just  as  sure  as  wind, 
weather,  and  dry  rot  level  the  trees  of  the  for- 
ests, so  will  its  ceaseless  operation  defeat  and  de- 
stroy his  huge  but  useless  Federation  of  Labor.  Let 
us  hope  it  may  fertilize  the  soil  for  growth  of  better 
things  when  it  falls  and  decays. 

[63] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

Meantime,  why  should  free,  unorganized  labor 
do  so  much  better  than  union  labor,  as  shown 
above?  The  question  is  interesting  and  the  answer 
even  more  so.  The  only  economic  explanation  that 
fits  the  circumstances  is  in  the  inefficiency  of  union 
labor;  the  result  of  the  Gompers'  Gospel  of  Sloth, 
of  Idleness,  of  least  work  for  most  pay  —  an  im- 
possible Gospel. 


[64] 


CHAPTER   IX 

THE   AMERICAN    FEDERATION    OF    LABOR.      IN- 
EFFICIENCY.      THE    GOSPEL    OF    SLOTH 

WE  now  reach,  and  I  call  particular  attention  to, 
the  worst  mischief  so  far  done  by  Labor  to  industry 
and  the  community;  though  its  effort  to  demoralize 
our  politics  may  yet  inflict  deeper  injury  upon  our  be- 
loved country.  I  refer  to  its  deliberate  minimizing 
of  production.  It  constitutes  one  of  the  heaviest 
handicaps  against  which  the  employer  has  to  con- 
tend, and  is  far  more  responsible  for  his  hatred  of 
trades-unionism  than  any  matter  of  mere  wages. 

It  has  from  the  very  beginning,  long  before  Gom- 
pers'  time,  been  the  theory  of  the  unions  that  it  is 
a  mistake  for  a  man  to  "  speed  up,"  to  do  all  he 
can  in  return  for  his  wages,  all  the  time;  because  his 
employer  will  not  then  need  to  hire  so  many  men  to 
do  the  same  work,  and  some  man  is  sure  to  be  left 
out  of  a  job.  That  man  is  also  sure  to  be  the  poor- 
est, least  efficient  workman;  the  man  that  likes  to 
take  a  day  off  now  and  then,  and  is  not  only  by 
nature  a  little  slow  but  a  little  lazy;  the  man  that  likes 
agitation  better  than  steady  work. 

The  unions  figure  that  there  is  only  so  much  work 
to  go  around,  and  it  must  be  split  up  into  smaller 
stents,  so  as  to  keep  the  largest  number  of  men  on 
the  pay  roll.  They  would  force  the  employer  to 
retain  the  slow  men  by  holding  back  the  fast  men 
and  cutting  down  the  hours  of  work.  They  entirely 

[65] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

overlook  the  great  factor  of  growth,  which  the  em- 
ployer has  always  at  hearty  and  ignore  the  fact  that 
the  way  to  increase  demand  for  labor  and  its  pay 
is  to  increase  output  and  cheapen  cost  of  production 
and  selling  price.  Low  price  creates  sales  and 
growth,  and  demand  for  greater  works  and  longer 
pay  rolls.  Growth  always  tends,  too,  to  diversifi- 
cation of  product,  and  in  that  way  also  to  lengthen 
the  pay  roll. 

It  is  strange  that  labor  leaders,  after  more  than 
a  half  century  of  opportunity  to  learn,  never  seem 
to  comprehend  this  simple  law  of  trade.  The  very 
latest  official  action  of  the  A.  F.  L.  Convention  at 
Montreal  (June,  1920)  shows  Mr.  Gompers  and 
his  lieutenants,  still  in  the  role  of  "stand-patters," 
enemies  of  "speeding-up,"  fighters  of  efficient  pro- 
duction. Though  talented  agitators,  they  are  es- 
sentially laboring  men,  not  captains  of  industry. 
They  run  true  to  mental  form. 

It  is  the  consensus  of  opinion  of  employers,  often 
enough  publicly  expressed  to  be  a  matter  of  com- 
mon knowledge,  that  union  labor  is  not  more  than 
two  thirds  as  efficient  as  non-union  labor  —  that  is, 
does  not  do  more  than  two  thirds  as  much  work  in 
the  same  time.  The  union  gospels  of  sloth,  the  dis- 
honest and  contemptible  union  purpose  to  give  less 
and  less  work  for  more  and  more  pay,  are  spread 
all  over  the  much-quoted  Report,  which,  as  before, 
will  be  the  foundation  of  my  judgment  of  Mr.  Gom- 
pers—  strengthened,  of  course,  by  citation  of  con- 
crete cases  in  point,  and  other  extraneous  evidence. 

The  "  Reconstruction  Program  "  adapted  by  the 
A.  F.  L.  at  its  1919  meeting  says  (Report,  page 
72):  "There  must  be  no  reduction  in  wages;  in 
many  instances  wages  must  be  increased."  "The 
workers  demand  a  living  wage  for  all  wage-earners, 

[66] 


GOSPEL   OF   SLOTH 

skilled  or  unskilled  —  a  wage  which  will  enable  the 
worker  and  his  family  to  live  in  health  and  comfort, 
provide  a  competence  for  idleness  and  old  age,  and 
afford  to  all  the  opportunity  of  cultivating  all  that 
is  best  within  mankind."  "The  shorter  work  day 
and  work  week  make  for  a  constantly  growing, 
higher  and  better  standard  of  productivity,  health, 
longevity,  morals  and  citizenship."  :<  The  right  of 
labor  to  fix  its  hours  of  work  must  not  be  abrogated 
or  interfered  with." 

"  The  day's  working  time  should  be  limited  to  not 
more  than  eight  hours  —  the  week's  working  time 
to  not  more  than  five  and  one  half  days." 

Resolution  No.  160  (see  Report,  pages  452 
et  seq.)  reads  in  part  as  follows:  "Whereas  tre- 
mendous changes  have  taken  place  in  the  industries 
of  this  country  and  the  world;  due  to  introduction 
of  new  machinery,  tools,  processes  and  methods  of 
efficiency,  and  production  of  commodities,  which  has 
increased  to  a  great  degree;  therefore  be  it  Re- 
solved, that  the  A.  F.  L.  and  its  affiliated  organiza- 
tions conduct  in  the  future  a  campaign  of  education 
to  establish  the  universal  6-Hour  day,  etc."  The 
Committee  on  Shorter  Workday  recommended  that 
the  A.  F.  L.  lend  assistance  to  any  union  seeking  to 
establish  a  shorter  workday,  that  will  provide  for 
the  employment  of  all  its  members;  and  this  recom- 
mendation was  adopted. 

The  foregoing  official  record  of  the  action  of  the 
A.  F.  L.  shows  that  it  presents  seven  points  (not 
fourteen  this  time)  : 

1.  That  wages  shall  be  maintained  or  increased. 

2.  That  wages  shall  be  big  enough  to  make  every  worker 

well  off,  even  in  old  age. 

3.  That  the  hours  of  work  shall  be  reduced. 

4.  That  labor  shall  fix  those  hours. 

[67] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

5.  That,  as  machinery  and  methods  improve,  so  as  to  in- 

crease production,  working  hours  must  be  shortened, 
presumably  enough  to  keep  production  down  to  old 
levels. 

6.  Resolution  No.  160  evidently  aims  at  getting  rid  of 

non-employment  by  shortening  work  hours  so  as  to 
take  more  men  to  do  same  work. 

7.  Resolutions    No.  in   and  No.   152   (see  page  381), 

against  profiteering,  show  that  Labor  proposes  to 
stop  rise  in  prices  of  commodities.  Shortage  in  sup- 
ply is  implied,  as  the  stopper. 

Perhaps  you,  Messrs.  Press  Writers,  reading 
these  Gompers'  seven  points,  are  asking  yourselves, 
as  men  of  ordinary  intelligence,  just  how  Organized 
Labor  is  going  to  "  democratize  industry  "  so  as  to 
increase  wages  to  a  point  far  beyond  the  world's 
experience,  while  likewise  decreasing  hours  of  work, 
without  enormously  increasing  cost  of  production; 
also  just  how  shortening  hours  and  putting  on  more 
men  to  do  the  same  work  to  end  unemployment, 
or  shortening  hours  to  nullify  the  increased  product 
gained  by  better  methods  and  machinery,  can  pos- 
sibly relieve  short  supply  or  reduce  high  cost  of 
commodities,  as  recited  in  the  Resolutions? 

Maybe  you  ask  yourselves  also  whether  Mr. 
Gompers  is  so  stupid  as  to  believe  his  own  econom- 
ics; whether  he  honestly  thinks  the  trusts  and  the 
A.  F.  L.  really  can  defy  the  law  of  supply  and  de- 
mand ;  or  that  his  Reconstruction  Program  will  actu- 
ally enable  Labor  to  get  more  out  of  the  world  by 
putting  less  into  it. 

He  may  be  so  stupid  and  yet  may  be  sincere,  but 
I  doubt  both  hypotheses.  His  record  discloses  a 
demagogue  of  very  unusual  personal  force,  who 
sizes  up  his  followers  perfectly  and  feeds  them 
seven  points,  or  seventy,  such  as  they  like,  and  such 

[68] 


GOSPEL   OF   SLOTH 

as  will  "  get  by."  One  of  these  points  is  simple 
sloth.  It  appeals  to  us  all,  as  to  the  tired  Vermont 
farmer's  wife,  who  soliloquized  as  follows : 

"  I  wisht  I  was  a  little  stun, 

A  settin'  on  a  hill, 
I  would  n't  do  a  gol-darned  thing 

But  stay  there,  settin'  still. 
I  would  n't  eat,  I  would  n't  drink ; 

I  would  n't  dress,  nor  wash, 
But  set  and  set  a  thousand  years, 

And  rest  myself,  by  gosh !  " 

Ants  and  bees,  one  or  two  animals,  and  some  men, 
work  hard  and  save  for  others  to  enjoy  after  they 
are  gone;  but  all  the  other  living  creatures  work  just 
hard  enough  to  live  from  season  to  season,  and 
from  the  cradle  to  the  grave.  Nature,  like  Shake- 
speare, is  content  merely  to 

"  Give  Richard  leave  to  live  till  Richard  die." 

Taking  the  world  as  a  whole,  or  each  country  by 
itself,  its  inhabitants  consume  each  year  all  the 
perishable  commodities,  food,  clothing,  etc.,  which 
they  produce;  or,  to  turn  the  equation  around 
the  other  way,  they  will  not  produce  more  than  is 
wanted  for  consumption.  No  manufacturer  will  go 
on  making  cotton  cloth  if  it  piles  up  on  his  shelves 
unsold;  no  farmer  will  seed  his  acres  for  corn  if  his 
last  year's  crop  unsold  remains  in  his  bins  over  seed- 
time. Rather  than  produce  what  he  cannot  sell,  he 
will  rest  himself,  by  gosh ! 

A  very  little  thought  will  show  the  sure  result  of 
the  Gompers'  gospel  of  sloth.  The  bulk  of  human 
labor  is  spent  on  the  production  and  distribution  of 
perishable  goods,  food  and  clothing,  light,  fuel,  etc. 
All  of  these  are  consumed  every  year,  or  spoil.  They 
cannot  be  accumulated  as  lasting  wealth  because 

[69] 


they  are  perishable.  For  that  reason  the  world  pro- 
duces only  just  enough  of  them  to  go  around,  and 
carry  over  from  one  season  to  the  next. 

The  remainder  of  human  labor  —  not  a  very  large 
part  of  it,  say  one  tenth  —  is  spent  in  producing  im- 
perishables,  so  called,  like  gold  and  jewels;  or  slowly 
perishables,  like  buildings  and  bridges;  or  short- 
lived wealth,  like  railways,  manufacturing  plants,  etc. 
Of  the  imperishables,  only  those  which  are  rare, 
like  gold,  are  valuable,  and  can  be  accumulated  as 
stored-up  wealth;  while  buildings,  railways,  manu- 
facturing plants,  etc.,  which  in  their  very  nature  re- 
quire much  labor  to  produce,  are  therefore  rare. 
There  is  not  and  never  can  be  enough  of  any  of 
these  imperishables,  or  slowly  perishables,  to  go  all 
around;  nor  can  the  latter  often  be  split  up  for 
physical  distribution,  even  when  considerable  in 
quantity  and  value. 

Everywhere,  from  year  to  year,  there  is  just 
about  enough  of  perishable  goods  to  go  around 
among  us  all,  and  no  more  —  even  for  Rockefeller, 
who  eats  no  more  than  you  or  I,  while  what  he  does 
not  eat  must  spoil  on  his  hands;  and  there  is  never 
anywhere  near  enough  of  imperishables,  or  slowly 
perishables,  to  go  around.  In  other  words,  very 
few  men  ever  can  be  rich! 

It  stands  to  reason,  then,  that  workers  who  de- 
liberately cut  down  production  —  either  by  working 
shorter  hours  or  by  slowing  down  their  pace  while 
at  work  —  of  perishable  goods,  whose  normal  sup- 
ply is  just  enough  to  go  around,  must  not  only  stint 
us  all,  but  especially  themselves.  For  they  have 
nothing  but  their  own  contribution  to  the  general 
stock,  against  which  to  draw  from  it  such  goods  as 
they  need.  In  cutting  down  their  own  output  they 
cut  down  their  own  purchasing  power  also. 
'  [70] 


GOSPEL   OF   SLOTH 

The  same  is  true,  and  much  more  true,  of  the 
imperishables,  whose  supply  is  never  nearly  large 
enough  to  go  around.  If  the  workers  cut  down 
their  own  production  thereof,  they  cut  down  still 
more  their  own  purchasing  power. 

That  is  the  logical,  and  it  seems  to  me  unescap- 
able,  explanation  why  free  unorganized  labor,  which 
can  and  does  produce  more  and  more  efficiently 
as  machinery  and  methods  improve,  forges  ahead 
faster  and  faster  in  comparison  with  organized 
labor,  hobbled  with  the  shackles  of  intentional 
sloth. 

To  justify  my  use  of  the  word  "  intentional,"  let 
me  turn  once  more  to  the  record  in  the  oft-quoted 
1919  Report  of  the  A.  F.  L.  —  or  to  its  predeces- 
sors. I  have  already  cited  this  Report  (pages  451- 
454)  to  prove  Labor's  purpose  to  shorten  working 
hours;  the  following  will  show  its  purpose  to  cut 
down  production  while  at  work,  —  in  plain  lan- 
guage, to  loaf  on  the  job.  On  page  121  Mr.  Gompers 
reports  success  in  retaining  in  the  naval  appropria- 
tion bill  a  provision  against  "so-called  efficiency" 
—  forbidding  the  study  under  the  stop  watch  of 
work  done  by  any  employee.  He  had  reported  the 
same  success  in  former  Reports. 

The  use  of  a  stop  watch  at  the  General  Electric 
Company's  works  at  Lynn  has  just  been  the  occa- 
sion (May  10,  1920)  of  a  walkout  of  a  number  of 
workers,  accompanied  by  threat  of  a  general  strike, 
to  prevent  the  timekeepers  from  determining  by  the 
watch  what  should  be  a  fair  day's  production  in 
winding  coils.  This  is  a  typical  case. 

Returning  to  the  Report,  page  451,  Resolution 
105  says,  "a  piece  work  basis  is  most  objectionable 
.  .  .  there  can  be  no  question  that  the  proper 
method  in  Governmental  departments  is  upon  a 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

fixed  price  for  certain  hours  of  work."  The  same 
Resolution  would  forbid  an  idle  man  to  put  in  his 
time  on  any  work  other  than  that  of  his  own  craft. 
He  must  rather  do  nothing  at  all.  On  page  468, 
Resolution  No.  218  puts  the  Ingersoll  Watch  con- 
cern on  the  "  unfair  list "  because  of  the  "  speed-up  " 
system  introduced  by  the  firm  for  greater  efficiency 
in  production.  This  Resolution  was  introduced  by 
the  "  Boycott  Committee." 

These  citations  (a  few  only  out  of  many)  suffice 
to  show  the  fixed  policy  of  Organized  Labor.  You, 
gentlemen  of  the  press,  can  judge  of  it  by  very  super- 
ficial inquiry.  For  instance,  just  ask  any  middle- 
aged  master  plumber  as  to  present  and  old-time 
efficiency  of  journeyman  plumbers,  most  of  whom 
are  union  men.  He  will  tell  you  that  they  used  to 
average  fifteen  to  twenty  wiped  joints  per  day.  Now 
they  are  restricted  by  union  rules  to  one  joint  per 
hour  —  or  say  forty- four  per  week,  as  against  ninety 
to  one  hundred  and  twenty  per  week  in  1880.  Is 
there  anything  to  wonder  at  when  the  plumber  com- 
plains, as  he  justly  does,  that  his  wages  will  not  buy 
as  much  of  this  world's  goods  today  as  they  used 
to  do,  while  the  unskilled,  non-union  laborers'  wages 
will  buy  more  than  of  old?  Can  a  man  who  con- 
tributes less  than  half  what  he  used  to  toward  the 
common  stock  justly  expect  to  take  out  of  it  even 
as  much  as  before,  to  say  nothing  of  taking  out 
more? 

Can  the  reader  wonder  that  every  manufacturer 
is  constantly  putting  in  improved  machinery  to  en- 
able free,  unskilled  common  labor  to  take  the  place 
of  skilled  union  labor,  so  long  as  the  latter  deliber- 
ately plans  to  baffle  the  best  effort  of  the  manufac- 
turer to  increase  output  and  lower  cost? 

Of  course  that  helps  common  labor!  The  Bible 
[72] 


GOSPEL  OF   SLOTH 

says  "  the  wages  of  sin  is  death."  The  law  of 
supply  and  demand,  not  quite  so  extreme  but  just 
as  implacable  as  Holy  Writ,  decrees  that  the  re- 
ward of  sloth  is  poverty.  The  average  man  can- 
not accumulate  fortune  in  perishable  goods,  because 
they  perish,  and  because  there  is  but  just  enough 
to  go  around;  and  but  a  few  supermen  can  accumu- 
late wealth  in  imperishable  goods,  because  what 
little  there  is  by  nature  can  accumulate  only  here 
and  there.  Who,  then,  shall  the  lucky  ones  be? 
Those  who  work  or  those  who  shirk?  Justice  and 
common  sense  and  universal  experience  agree  with 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  in  awarding 
the  fortune  to  the  man  that  has  the  energy  to  work, 
and  the  thrift  to  save,  and  the  brain  to  plan,  and 
the  courage  to  risk.  That  man  is  seldom  a  union 
laborer,  though  he  not  seldom  has  been  one  for  a 
while. 

At  this  point  the  Bolshevist,  the  Socialist,  the 
Collectivist,  etc.,  come  in  to  tell  us  that  the  United 
States,  like  the  Creator,  has  constituted  things  all 
wrong;  "but  that  is  another  story,"  as  Kipling  says. 
Just  now  we  are  considering  Labor.  Moreover, 
the  Creator,  in  his  infinite  wisdom,  has  ordained 
that  he  who  accumulates  a  fortune  cannot  benefit 
by  it  unless  he  puts  it  at  work  for  the  service  of 
humanity  in  productive  industry;  in  the  course  of 
which  employment  it  must  buy  and  pay  for,  year  in 
and  year  out,  large  and  larger  quantities  of  that 
" human  labor"  which,  fortunately  for  its  owners  and 
in  spite  of  Mr.  Gompers,  is  a  mere  and  extremely 
salable  "commodity  of  commerce" 

This  is,  it  seems  to  me,  in  the  divine  scheme  of 
this  world's  affairs,  the  reason  for  existence  of  the 
capitalist^  the  exceptional  man  of  business;  namely, 
to  employ  much  labor  and  give' many  men  the  means 

[73] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

of  useful  and  comfortable  self-support.  He  may 
be,  and  from  a  business  standpoint  should  be,  selfish 
but  just,  demanding  and  giving  value  for  value ;  and 
he  cannot  succeed  without  carrying  upward  with  him 
many,  many  others. 

Can  you  not  see,  gentlemen  of  the  press,  that 
Capitalism,  however  selfish  it  may  be,  is  intelligent, 
constructive?  That  its  consistent  purpose  of  expan- 
sion, of  enlarged  and  cheapened  production  and 
distribution  —  because  therein  lies  the  greater  re- 
ward—  is  for  the  benefit  of  the  community  also? 
Can  you  not,  per  contra,  see  that  trades-unionism 
of  the  Gompers  type,  while  just  as  selfish,  is  stupid, 
destructive?  That  its  consistent  purpose  of  block- 
ing expansion,  of  giving  less  and  less  to  the  com- 
munity while  demanding  from  it  more  and  more,  is 
necessarily  an  injury  to  all,  as  well  as  a  fatal  blunder 
for  itself? 

Is  it  not  clear  that  Capitalism,  doing  with  all  its 
might  greater  service  to  the  world,  deserves  and 
will  always  receive  its  greater  dividend  from  the 
world?  While  Gompersism,  holding  back  with  all 
its  might  against  service  to  the  world,  deserves 
and  will  inevitably  receive  only  the  beatings  and 
the  scanty  fare,  that  always  fall  to  the  lot  of  "  balky 
critters"  that  will  not  pull  their  load? 


[74] 


CHAPTER  X 

IRRESPONSIBILITY   OF   LABOR 

ONE  of  the  many  difficulties,  perhaps  the  greatest 
obstacle  from  the  point  of  view  of  Capital,  in  deal- 
ing collectively  with  Organized  Labor,  is  the  finan- 
cial irresponsibility  of  the  latter. 

The  first  question  raised,  when  capitalist  deals 
with  capitalist,  is  that  of  responsibility.  Each  asks 
whether  the  other  is  good  for  his  contract,  whether 
it  can  be  enforced  at  law.  If  not,  there  is  "  nothing 
doing"  between  the  parties. 

When  it  comes  to  dealing  with  Labor,  on  the  con- 
trary, the  latter  insists  on  carefully  guarded  irre- 
sponsibility; at  least  so  far  as  refusal  to  incorporate 
legally  goes  to  protect  union  funds  from  suit  brought 
to  enforce  performance  of  union  contracts. 

Of  course  it  is  none  the  less  true,  under  the  com- 
mon law,  that  the  members  of  an  unincorporated 
association,  such  as  a  labor  union,  are  always  per- 
sonally liable  for  all  its  obligations;  as  indeed  Labor 
found  out  to  its  sorrow  in  the  case  of  Loewe  vs. 
United  Hatters  of  North  America.  But  as  in  prac- 
tice it  is  a  costly  process,  as  well  as  doubtful  of 
results,  to  sue  a  large  number  of  laboring  men  indi- 
vidually, the  union  leaders,  who  employ  clever  law- 
yers, are  well  aware  that  such  suits  are  seldom 
brought,  and  that  meantime  union  funds  can  be  made 
elusive  and  hard  to  reach  under  present  conditions. 

If,  on  the  contrary,  the  unions  were  incorporated, 
and  complied  with  the  laws  intended  to  protect  the 

[75] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

creditors  of  corporations,  it  would  be  comparatively 
easy  to  reach  and  impound  union  money. 

Now,  the  one  thing  which  union  leaders  reli- 
giously guard  from  the  profanation  of  handling 
other  than  their  own  is  union  income  and  accumu- 
lated cash.  It  is  in  their  eyes  quite  enough  to  return 
to  their  members  a  fifth  or  sixth  part  of  their  an- 
nual contributions  in  the  shape  of  so-called  benefits; 
and  it  is  absolutely  unthinkable  to  risk  the  remaining 
four  fifths  by  putting  it,  or  any  accumulated  rem- 
nant of  it,  up  to  guarantee  performance  of  union 
contracts. 

For  instance,  in  1901  the  United  Hatters  of  North 
America  demanded  that  Loewe  &  Co.  of  Danbury, 
Conn.,  should  unionize  their  factory  and  establish 
the  "  closed  shop."  The  latter  refused.  Then  the 
Hatters  called  out  Loewe's  union  men  on  strike,  and 
declared  a  nation-wide  boycott  of  hats  made  by  the 
firm;  causing  to  it  heavy  loss.  The  firm  sued  the 
Hatters  for  damages,  and  as  they  were  not  incorpo- 
rated, caused  attachments  to  be  levied  upon  186 
homes  and  on  sundry  bank  accounts  owned  by  mem- 
bers of  the  union  resident  in  Danbury.  The  United 
Hatters  defended  the  suits,  and  entered  into  written 
agreement  with  the  owners,  assuming  entire  respon- 
sibility for  the  conduct  of  the  suit,  and  the  payment 
of  any  judgments  obtained. 

After  eleven  years  of  litigation,  in  which  the  case 
was  carried  by  the  Hatters  to  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States,  judgment  for  over  $250,000 
damages  against  them  was  finally  affirmed  in  No- 
vember, 1912.  The  American  Federation  of  Labor 
had  intervened  in  the  suit,  alleging  a  financial  in- 
terest therein;  and  at  its  1908  Convention  pledged 
to  the  suffering  owners  of  homes  and  bank  accounts 
its  financial  aid:  therefore  the  firm  waited  three 

[76] 


IRRESPONSIBILITY   OF   LABOR 

years  for  some  proposition  of  payment  from  the 
unions,  but  finally  collected  from  the  banks,  and 
started  to  sell  the  homes  for  the  debt.  Though  it 
then  would  have  taken  an  assessment  of  but  ten  cents 
per  member  of  the  A.  F.  L.  to  pay  the  judgment, 
principal  and  interest,  the  A.  F.  L.  petitioned  Con- 
gress that  the  Nation  should  pay  it,  on  the  ex- 
traordinary ground  that  the  Sherman  Law  against 
combination  and  conspiracy  was  not  meant  to  hit 
Organized  Labor!  Congress  refused,  for  a  wonder; 
but  subsequently  passed  the  Clayton  Act,  excepting 
Labor  from  the  perils  of  the  Sherman  Law.  The 
Federation  then  considered  that  it  had  discharged 
its  obligation  to  the  Danbury  sufferers  by  procuring 
passage  of  an  act  that  "precluded  the  possibility 
of  any  similar  suit";  and  for  some  time  left  the 
poor  fellows  to  console  themselves  with  Mr.  Gom- 
pers'  sympathy,  quoted  by  the  New  York  Times 
April  24,  1915,  as  follows:  "I  feel  awfully  with 
regard  to  how  the  men  will  take  this  when  they  lose 
their  homes." 

Meantime,  however,  he  and  the  Federation  had 
come  to  the  aid  of  the  Los  Angeles  Times  dyna- 
miters, and  had  easily  raised  a  quarter  of  a  million 
dollars  to  defend  the  McNamara  gang  in  the  crimi- 
nal courts.  The  difference  in  the  two  cases  lay  in 
the  fact  that  the  dynamiters  were  high  officials  in 
their  unions;  the  Danbury  victims  mere  rank  and 
file  —  who,  as  Mr.  Gompers  put  it,  "suffer  for  the 
movement."  Eventually  the  United  Hatters  and 
the  A.  F.  L.  could  no  longer  evade  this  obligation 
to  the  Danbury  men,  and  they  reluctantly  paid  the 
greater  part  of  the  judgment  and  costs. 

The  question  that  naturally  arises  to  the  inquiring 
mind  is,  When  will  the  rank  and  file  open  their  eyes 
to  see  where  their  good  money  goes?  When  will 

[77] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

they  contrast  their  own  dividend  from  trades-union- 
ism with  that  of  the  100,000  leaders  who  do  not 
lose  their  homes  or  jobs,  and  are  promptly  cared 
for  by  their  great  machine  ?  When  will  they  notice 
that  strike  benefits  do  not  make  good  lost  wages? 
(That  is,  if  the  Reports  of  the  A.  F.  L.  and  the 
Department  of  Labor  are  to  be  trusted.  In  1918, 
for  instance,  the  A.  F.  L.  paid  out  "  to  sustain  mem- 
bers on  strike"  the  large  sum  of  $1,474,380.79: 
but  that  came  to  only  13  cents  per  day  per  striker 
against  lost  wages  of  perhaps  $4  per  day.  For  the 
Department  of  Labor  reported  1,102,418  men  out 
for  an  average  of  18  days;  in  3181  strikes,  of  which 
1811  were  called  by  the  unions,  or,  say,  57  per  cent. 
The  union  men  must  have  lost,  say,  1 1,312,000  days 
— or  over  $45,000,000  in  wages,  against  $1,500,000 
or  less,  made  up  by  the  unions.) 

When  will  they  see  that  sick  and  death  benefits 
received  are  far  less  than  their  union  dues  invested 
in  ordinary  industrial  insurance  would  yield?  Most 
vital  of  all,  when  will  they  realize  that  union  wages, 
under  the  union  cult  of  sloth,  lag,  and  always  will 
lag,  behind  those  of  free  labor,  in  comparison  with 
cost  of  living? 

All  these  are  the  results  of  irresponsible  unionism; 
irresponsible  to  law,  to  economics,  to  public  opinion, 
and  meanest  of  all,  to  its  own  faithful  following. 


[78] 


CHAPTER   XI 

ORGANIZED   LABOR.      POLITICAL    EVOLUTION 
AND   INTENTIONS 

WITHOUT  attempting  an  exact  history,  Mr.  Gom- 
pers'  political  program  and  ambitions  are,  I  fancy, 
in  evolution,  broadening  and  heightening  with  the 
growth  of  the  A.  F.  L.  and  his  own  continued  suc- 
cess in  trading  with  politicians  in  power. 

My  first  contact  with  Organized  Labor  as  a  semi- 
political  affair  was  in  Chicago,  around  1900,  when 
Labor  seemed  to  have  a  "pull"  with  the  city  au- 
thorities that  held  back  the  hand  of  the  police  during 
labor  disputes.  The  non-union  man  was  pretty  well 
terrorized  in  those  days,  as  my  own  men  informed 
me  in  1903,  when  I  put  my  factory  under  the  pro- 
tection of  an  injunction  of  a  local  court,  forbidding 
violence  and  abuse  from  pickets,  in  order  that  it 
might  start  work  after  a  protracted  strike.  There 
had  been  many  strikes  and  much  slugging  (with  one 
or  two  fatalities)  in  Chicago,  during  three  years 
previous,  which  finally  came  to  such  a  point  of  vio- 
lence upon  the  public  streets  (in  the  teamsters'  strike) 
that  public  opinion  turned  against  the  unions,  and  the 
police  had  to  do  their  duty.  Meantime  two  judges, 
Holdom  and  Chytraus,  had  been  appealed  to  by  em- 
ployers and  had  granted  nearly  an  hundred  injunc- 
tions against  violence  and  sabotage.  Their  terms  of 
office  expired,  and  they  came  up  for  reelection  in 
1904.  Then  the  Federation  of  Labor,  which  claimed 
one  hundred  thousand  members  in  Chicago,  sent  out 

[79] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

public  notice'  to  all  union  men  to  defeat  Holdom  and 
Chytraus,  upon  which  the  business  interests  of  the 
city,  though  not  very  energetically,  rallied  to  their 
support.  Both  were  reflected,  running,  as  my  mem- 
ory goes,  from  nine  thousand  to  fifteen  thousand 
votes  behind  the  leaders  on  the  same  ticket.  It  ap- 
peared at  the  time  as  though  but  nine  to  fifteen  per 
cent  of  the  alleged  Labor  vote  was  actually  "  de- 
livered" when  called  for  by  the  Federation.  Not 
long  after,  a  conspicuous  test  of  voting  power  was 
made  when  the  Federation  attempted  to  defeat  the 
reelection  of  Congressman  Littlefield,  down  in 
Maine.  He  too  was  reflected,  the  alleged  Labor 
vote  failing  delivery.  Gompers  and  the  A.  F.  L. 
opposed  Governor  Coolidge  last  year  on  account  of 
his  action  in  the  Boston  police  strike,  which  added 
fifty  thousand  votes  to  his  unprecedented  majority 
and  overwhelming  victory.  He  carried  all  the  great 
labor  centers  of  the  State,  unquestionably  supported 
by  the  laboring  men  on  the  issue  of  law  and  order 
against  trades-unionism. 

I  doubt  whether  there  are  many  other  cases  as 
clean-cut  as  the  foregoing  from  which  the  weight  of 
the  Labor  vote  can  be  calculated ;  but  whether  in  fact 
light  or  heavy,  it  counts  for  many  tons  with  many 
Congressmen  and  local  politicians.  Local  labor 
leaders  naturally  trade  on  the  desire  for  or  fear  of 
the  Labor  vote,  to  get  city  jobs  for  union  men,  jack 
up  city  wage-scales,  pull  off  the  police  from  inter- 
ference with  picket  lines,  etc.,  and  usually  find  local 
politicians  pliant. 

To  return  to  my  tale :  as  the  American  Federation 
grew  larger  and  larger  and  larger,  as  the  railway 
Brotherhoods  expanded,  as  the  United  States  courts 
and  army  were  drawn  into  restraint  of  union  actions 
(for  instance,  in  the  Debs  railway  strike  of  1894), 

[80] 


A.   F.   L.   POLITICAL   INTENTION 

Mr.  Gompers  felt  the  need  of  national  political 
"  pull "  as  well  as  local.  The  Federation  moved  to 
Washington,  where  there  are  few  employers  but 
many  politicians,  built  the  "  A.  F.  L.  building  "  right 
alongside  the  war  and  navy  departments,  and  is 
firmly  and  conspicuously  planted  there,  able  to  shake 
the  Labor  vote  at  the  President  and  Congress  every 
day  in  the  year. 

Of  course  there  are  always  the  thousands  of  local 
unions,  city  and  state  federations,  etc.,  to  shake  their 
local  vote  at  Governors,  Mayors,  and  members  of 
the  Legislatures  in  every  state  and  city.  Nor  is 
their  threat  a  light  one  to  the  average  politician,  who 
in  ordinary  years  has  no  compelling  issue  in  his  plat- 
form upon  which  to  stand;  who  has  nothing  to  de- 
termine popular  favor  except  a  party  label,  or  that 
he  is  a  good  fellow.  It  makes  a  lot  of  difference  to 
such  a  politician  if  he  can  rely  on  the  solid  vote  of 
the  members  of  a  good  big  local  union. 

And  in  national  elections  —  consider  the  possible 
vote  of  Organized  Labor.  Roosevelt's  record  plur- 
ality was  around  2,585,000.  Taft's  was  only  1,270,- 
ooo.  Wilson's  second  election  was  but  582,000. 
If  we  grant  Mr.  Gompers'  claim  that  there  are  today 
over  four  million  organized  workers,  and  assume 
that  forty-five  per  cent  of  them  are  voters  (as  is 
the  case  with  labor  generally),  there  is  a  possible 
"  Labor  vote  "  of  1,800,000,  which  is  far  more  than 
necessary  to  carry  a  presidential  election  if  delivered 
solidly  to  either  one  of  the  two  great  parties,  and 
not  counterbalanced  otherwise. 

Per  contra,  "Labor"  is  nowhere  near  big  enough 
to  constitute  a  victorious,  independent  Party. 

Hence  Mr.  Gompers'  perfectly  consistent  and 
well-advised  strategy  not  to  organize  a  Labor  party, 
not  to  put  up  Labor  candidates,  as  such,  but  to  bid 

[81] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

Labor  play  the  part  of  a  political  prostitute,  giving 
its  favor  to  whatever  candidate  of  whatever  party 
promises  most.  Mr.  Gompers'  public  manifesto  of 
February  8,  1920,  reads  as  follows: 

"  The  American  labor  movement  finds  it  neces- 
sary vigorously  to  apply  its  long  and  well-established 
non-partisan  political  policy  .  .  .  Confronted  by  a 
succession  of  hostile  Congresses,  the  A.  F.  L.  in 
1906  announced  its  historic  'bill  of  grievances.' 
This  was  followed  by  a  vigorous  and  successful  non- 
partisan  political  campaign.  In  1908,  1910  and 
1912  the  same  program  was  energetically  applied. 
As  a  result,  many  of  Labor's  enemies  in  Congress 
were  defeated  and  all  of  the  essential  legislation  in 
'Labor's  Bill  of  Grievances'  of  1906  was  enacted. 
.  .  .  Organized  Labor  owes  allegiance  to  no  po- 
litical party  .  .  .  Wherever  candidates  for  reelec- 
tion have  been  unfriendly  to  labor's  interests  they 
should  be  defeated  and  election  of  tried  and  true 
trades-unionists,  or  of  assured  friends,  should  be 
secured  .  .  .  whether  for  President,  for  Congress, 
for  state  legislatures  or  any  other  office  .  .  .  The 
time  for  vigorous  and  determined  action  is  here." 

No  fault  can  be  found  with  Mr.  Gompers  and  the 
A.  F.  L.  for  using  the  ballot  to  protect  their  con- 
stitutional rights,  or  to  modify  the  Constitution  in  a 
constitutional  way.  That  is  what  the  ballot  is  for 
in  a  free  country.  It  is  the  privilege  and  the  duty 
of  the  rest  of  us,  if  we  do  not  like  what  organized 
labor  ballots  for,  to  ballot  ourselves  against  it,  and 
defeat  it  if  we  can.  We  are  bound,  therefore,  to 
inquire  carefully  just  what  labor  wants  of  the  Presi- 
dent, of  Congress,  and  the  Legislatures.  Is  it  some 
constitutional  right  that  it  seeks  to  save,  or  some  un- 
constitutional class  advantage  it  is  determined  to 
force  by  threatening  frightened  Congressmen? 

[82] 


A.   F.   L.    POLITICAL   INTENTION 

To  begin  with,  what  Labor  has  already  got  by 
political  activity,  local  and  national,  may  be  sum- 
marized as  follows: 

1.  For  many  years  local  police  and  military  au- 
thorities have  winked  at  violence  and  terrorism  in 
labor  disputes,  and  have  only  interfered  to  maintain 
law  and  order  and  protect  life  and  property  when 
popular  indignation  compelled  so  doing.     Of  late 
years  the  public  by  intensive  experience  has  grown 
rather  impatient  of  organized  labor,  and  the  poli- 
ticians in  power  are  becoming  quickly  responsive  in 
maintaining  law  and  order.    (In  consequence  Organ- 
ized Labor  has  lately  sought  to  change  the  law  and 
limit  judicial  power.) 

2.  A  number  of  years  ago  Labor  obtained  from 
Congress  a  law  making  eight  hours  a  day's  work  in 
all  government  employment,  and  on  all  government 
contract  work.     This  was  the  entering  wedge,  re- 
cently followed  up  by  the  Adamson  Law  of  1916 
establishing  the  eight-hour  day  for  railroad  workers. 
A  good  many  subsidiary  eight-hour  laws  have  been 
passed  by  different  State  and  City  Legislatures,   I 
believe. 

3.  Acts  excluding  oriental  immigration,  etc.,  have 
been  passed,  largely  at  the  instance  of  Organized 
Labor. 

4.  A  Seaman's  Act,  allowing  seamen  to  quit  any 
time  provided  their  ship  is  safe  in  port,  instead  of 
being  bound  to  complete  the  voyage  for  which  they 
shipped,  has  been  passed. 

5.  A  Department  of  Labor  was  segregated  from 
the  old  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  and 
a  union  man  made  Secretary  of  it  under  the  present 
Administration.      The    Department   is   now  pretty 
well  "packed"  with  officials  friendly  to  Mr.  Gom- 
pers  and  his  associates. 

[83] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

6.  A  number  of  child  and  female  labor  laws, 
workmen's  compensation  laws,  inspection,  sanitation, 
and  safety  appliance  laws  have  been  passed  with 
Organized  Labor's  approval,  or  perhaps  its  initia- 
tive.    I  say  perhaps,  because  none  of  these  things 
were  taken  seriously  enough  by  Organized  Labor  to 
cause  the  calling  of  one  single  strike  in  the  twenty- 
five  years  from  1881  to  1905  (see  Report  on  Strikers 
and   Lockouts   of   Committee   of   Labor),    out   of 
nearly  thirty-seven  thousand  recorded  by  Carroll  D. 
Wright.     Since  1905  the  Committee  of  Labor  has 
not  tabulated  the  statistics  of  about  as  many  more 
strikes,  nor  brought  this  particular  record  down  to 
date,  but  such  as  it  is,  the  record  indicates  that  phi- 
lanthropists and  reformers  passed  those  laws  with- 
out especial  pressure  from  Labor.    Nobody  opposed 
them  seriously. 

7.  Congress  passed  the  Clayton  Anti-Trust  Law, 
including  a  declaration  that  human  labor  is  not  a 
commodity  of  commerce,  and  excepting  labor  and 
farmer  combination  from  being  held  to  be  conspiracy 
in  restraint  of  trade. 

This  law  is  the  crowning  triumph  of  the  political 
activities  of  Organized  Labor  in  the  United  States 
(see  Report,  pages  197—410),  the  most  far-reaching 
in  its  practical  effect  and  intention,  as  triumphantly 
announced  by  Mr.  Gompers,  viz. :  to  deny  to  the  em- 
ployer the  protection  of  the  courts,  in  advance, 
against  the  violence  and  abuse  that  usually  breaks 
out  along  the  picket  lines  established  by  Organized 
Labor  in  every  strike. 

To  explain  the  Act  to  the  uninitiated,  let  me  say 
that  Organized  Labor  openly  admits  that  a  strike 
has  poor  chance  of  success  unless  a  picket  line  is 
drawn  to  keep  other  workmen  from  taking  the  jobs 
vacated  by  the  strikers.  The  jobs  are  good  enough 

[84] 


A.   F.   L.   POLITICAL   INTENTION 

and  attractive  enough  to  fetch  plenty  of  men  glad 
to  fill  them  in  a  few  days  or  weeks,  if  free  play  is 
allowed  to  that  law  of  supply  and  demand  which 
Mr.  Gompers  says  does  not  exist.  Indeed  the 
strikers  themselves  are  determined  to  hold  on  to 
the  jobs,  and  have  not  the  remotest  idea  of  giving 
them  up.  They  mean  to  save  their  cake  and  eat 
it  too;  to  keep  their  jobs,  but  make  the  boss  pay 
better  than  the  wages  that  they  were,  and  others  are, 
glad  enough  to  take.  The  only  way  to  do  this  is  to 
keep  those  others  away,  by  persuasion  —  or,  if  it 
comes  to  that,  by  force.  So  the  picket  line  is  drawn 
around  the  job. 

Naturally  the  employer  is  indignant,  and  the  non- 
union workers  who  want  work  are  indignant.  Both 
protest  that  this  is  a  free  country,  and  the  public 
streets  are  free  to  every  man;  that  the  employer  has 
a  right  to  offer  and  the  non-union  man  a  right  to 
accept  such  work  and  wages  as  they  choose,  under 
lawful  conditions.  When  the  non-union  man  finds 
his  way  barred  by  the  pickets,  talk  gets  hot,  and 
blows  follow.  Likewise  the  picket  line  often  turns 
back  coal,  material,  etc.,  on  its  way  to  the  employer. 
There  can  be  no  question  whatever  that  the  con- 
stitutional right  of  both  employer  and  non-union 
seeker  of  employment  to  "  life,  liberty,  and  the  pur- 
suit of  happiness,"  —  i.e.  of  any  lawful  business  — 
is  deliberately  trampled  on  by  a  combination  of  union 
men  in  restraint  of  trade. 

The  union  leaders  say:  "Very  well,  what  of  it? 
If  we  break  the  law,  let  us  be  tried  by  a  jury  of  our 
peers,  and  punished  for  it.  Of  course  we  do  not 
admit  any  intent  to  break  the  law.  It  may  be  that 
foolish  men  sometimes  get  angry;  that  is  an  incident 
of  industrial  warfare,  nothing  more." 

The  employer  answers :  "  Doubtless  you  are  will- 
[85] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

ing  to  take  the  chances  of  a  jury  trial  two  or  three 
months  hence  for  slugging  our  workmen  today;  you 
feel  pretty  sure  that  your  experienced  lawyers  will 
get  your  men  off  cheap  enough.  But  how  about  the 
non-union  men  who  are  hurt  meantime,  while  pass- 
ing along  the  public  streets;  will  a  verdict  against 
sluggers  cure  their  injuries?  How  about  my  busi- 
ness irreparably  damaged,  sales  and  output  lost  for- 
ever? I  must  appeal  to  the  courts  for  protection 
in  advance  —  maintenance  of  law  and  order;  I 
cannot  wait  till  the  mischief  has  been  done  beyond 
repair,  and  then  appeal  to  the  courts  for  punishment, 
useless  when  inflicted." 

So  the  employer  goes  to  the  court  and  the  judge 
grants  an  injunction  against  breach  of  law.  Then, 
when  a  union  picket  proceeds  to  "  knock  the  block 
of"  a  non-union  man,  or  to  throw  a  monkey  wrench 
into  a  fast  running  machine,  he  is  haled  before  the 
judge  instantly,  and  sentenced  by  the  judge  —  no 
packed  jury  to  appeal  to  —  for  contempt  of  the  in- 
junction order  of  the  court.  The  proceeding  is 
summary  and  effective,  and  generally  stops  violence. 
The  streets  are  opened  once  more,  the  natural  flow 
of  labor  and  material  under  law  and  order  is  re- 
sumed, business  goes  on,  and  the  strike  fails! 

The  reader  will  observe  that  mere  maintenance  of 
law  and  order  —  as  enforced  last  fall  by  General 
Wood  at  Gary  during  the  steel  strike  —  causes  the 
strike  to  fail.  Therefore  Mr.  Gompers  accuses  the 
judges,  whose  sworn  duty  it  is  to  maintain  law  and 
order,  of  acting  as  "  strike  breakers,"  of  being  owned 
by  and  subservient  to  the  capitalistic  class.  That  is 
why  he  procured  the  passage  of  the  Clayton  Act,  in- 
tended to  permit  labor  to  coerce  capital  without  fear 
of  injunctions. 

8.  President  Wilson  embodied  in  the  Peace 
[86] 


A.    F.   L.    POLITICAL   INTENTION 

Treaty  formulated  in  Paris  in  1919  the  following 
principles : 

That  labor  is  not  a  commodity  of  commerce. 

The  right  to  organize. 

A  reasonable  living  wage. 

An  eight-hour  day  and  six-day  week. 

No  child  labor. 

Equal  pay  for  women  and  men,  same  work. 

Equitable  economic  standards  everywhere. 

Provisions  were  made  for  an  International  Labor 
Bureau  of  the  League  of  Nations.  The  defeat  of 
the  Treaty  in  the  Senate  has  brought  this  effort  to 
naught  as  far  as  we  are  concerned. 

The  foregoing  list  comprises  the  major  accom- 
plishments of  Organized  Labor's  political  activity 
up  to  date.  It  continues  in  intensified  degree,  though 
against  increasing  public  opposition,  with  the  follow- 
ing more  or  less  distinctly  defined  purposes  in  view, 
namely  — 

For: 

.1.    Unlimited    right   to   organize,   even   in   government 
service. 

2.  Unlimited  right  to  strike,  even  against  public  welfare. 

3.  Unlimited  right  to  collective  bargaining;  that  is,  em- 

ployers must  recognize  and  deal  with  unions,  not 
with  individuals.     No  "  open  shop." 

4.  Government  ownership  of  railroad  and  other  utilities. 

(Report,  page  126.) 

5.  Government  housing. 

6.  Government    contribution    to   education.      (Report, 

page  129.) 

7.  Government  works  to  prevent  unemployment. 

8.  Government     monopoly     of     Employment     Bureau 

service.     (Report,  page  123.) 

9.  Abolishing  power  of  state  and  national  supreme  courts 

[87] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

to  declare  laws  unconstitutional.     (Report,  pages 

74,  97,  99-) 

10.  Limiting  power  of  judges  to  grant  injunctions,   so 

that  Labor  may  break  the  law  first  and  take  the 
consequences  of  punishment  by  jury  trial  after- 
wards. 

11.  Initiative  and  referendum.     (Report,  pages  99,  I99-) 

12.  Minimum   wage   and  shorter  work  day.      (Report, 

pages  113,  II5-) 

Against: 

Every  form  of  legal  control  or  responsibility  of  Organ- 
ized Labor,  such  as: 

13.  Compulsory  arbitration  or  industrial  courts. 

14.  Prohibition  of  police  or  other  strikes. 

15.  Collective  liability  of  unions  for  collective 

bargains  or  acts  of  union  members. 

1 6.  Compulsory  military  training. 

17.  Large  regular  army.     Voluntary  militia  preferred. 

1 8.  Use  of  soldiers  for  police  duty  during  strikes. 

19.  Public  sale  of  products  of  convict  labor. 

20.  Efficiency  systems  in  government  work. 

21.  Fixing  wages  or  rules  for  government  employees  by 

law. 

22.  Every  law  intended  to  bring  employers  and  employees 

into  direct  friendly  contact,  without  intervention 
of  Organized  Labor. 

Examination  of  these  openly  announced  political 
purposes  or  policies  of  Organized  Labor  shows  that 
they  fall  under  the  following  general  classification: 

Numbers  I,  2,  3,  8,  13,  14,  21,  and  22  are  intended  to  per- 
petuate under  the  sanction  of  law  the  present  cen- 
tralized control  of  labor  in  the  Federation  and  the 
Brotherhoods,  with  the  monopoly  of  work  and  coercion  of 
employers  once  considered  conspiracy  and  breach  of  law. 

Numbers  4,  5,  6,  7,   12,   19,  and  20  contemplate  raids  on 
the  public  purse  for  the  benefit  of  Labor. 
[88] 


A.   F.   L.   POLITICAL   INTENTION 

Numbers  u  and  17,  and  especially  number  9,  are  attacks 
on  the  guarantees  of  the  Constitution,  on  representative 
government,  and  the  power  of  government  to  enforce  law, 
in  the  interest  of  demagogy,  pure  and  simple,  and  the 
removal  of  all  restraint  from  the  great  machine  controlled 
by  Mr.  Gompers. 

Number  15  perpetuates  the  irresponsibility  of  Labor. 

Number  16  seems  intended  to  avoid  performance  of  public 
duty. 

Number  10  and  number  18  are  intended  to  prevent  the 
maintenance  of  law  and  order  during  strikes. 

I  urge  your  most  careful  consideration  of  the  fore- 
going analysis  of  the  political  program  of  Organized 
Labor,  gentlemen  of  the  press,  and  ask  you  seriously 
whether  it  ought  not  to  be  repudiated  in  toto  by 
every  American  who  loves  his  country.  Every  line 
of  it  seems  to  me  dictated  by  the  most  intense  selfish- 
ness, by  determination  to  concentrate  and  perpetuate 
personal  control  of  industry  and  the  state  in  the 
hands  of  labor  demagogues,  under  the  pretense  of 
democracy. 

Well,  so  far  1919  and  1920  have  been  Mr.  Gom- 
pers' bad  years.  His  big  strikes  have  failed,  the 
people  are  getting  tired  of  the  mischief  he  makes, 
the  Administration  has  gone  back  on  him ;  neverthe- 
less, driven  to  bay  with  his  back  to  the  wall,  he  does 
not  yield  an  inch,  but  makes  the  fight  of  his  life.  It 
is  the  psychological  moment  to  beat  him  at  the  polls. 

That  is  what  the  people  have  already  done  in 
England  and  France,  backing  up  the  Administrations 
there  that  have  at  last  had  the  good  sense  and  the 
courage  to  call  a  halt  on  the  holding-up  of  national 
life  by  Organized  Labor.  Let  me  repeat  the  old 
German  proverb : 

"  Things  are  so  ordained  that  the  trees  do  not 
grow  into  the  heavens." 

[89] 


CHAPTER   XII 

CLARIFYING   STUDIES.      SOCIAL   JUSTICE. 
MORAL   BASIS    OF   CAPITALISM 

BEFORE  going  to  the  polls,  and  while  Gompers  and 
the  politicians  are  making  up  the  form  in  which  the 
labor  issue  shall  present  itself,  it  is  as  well  to  study 
for  ourselves  a  little  in  advance,  and  to  distill  what 
Lowell  called  the  "clarified  residuum  of  thought," 
as  to  essentials  which  are  certain  to  underlie  that 
issue,  when  presented. 

Unquestionably  the  most  powerful  appeal  to  the 
conscience  of  the  average  American  man  or  woman 
made  by  Labor  is  that  for  "  Social  Justice."  We  all 
want  it.  Ten  thousand  preachers,  reformers,  charity 
workers;  twenty  thousand  press  and  other  writers; 
a  hundred  thousand  demagogues,  none  of  whom 
ever  offer  a  job  to  a  workingman;  some  statesmen 
—  even  men  so  totally  different,  as  Roosevelt,  Taft, 
and  Woodrow  Wilson  —  have  thundered  for  years 
at  Rockefeller,  Gary,  and  Armour  as  malefactors 
of  great  wealth,  commanding  them  to  do  "  Social 
Justice";  yet  never  does  any  single  one  of  these 
orators  —  so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  learn  (even 
Roosevelt) — attempt  to  find  out  or  to  define  just 
what  "  Social  Justice  "  actually  is,  or  to  make  sure 
that  as  a  matter  of  fact  it  is  not  already  ordi- 
narily done,  everywhere  and  always,  under  the 
operation  of  forces  far  stronger  than  human  kind- 
ness or  human  greed.  Perhaps  the  blindest  guide 
of  all  those  who  bind  great  burdens  and  lay  them 

[90] 


SOCIAL  JUSTICE 

on  other  men's  shoulders  is  President  Wilson.  His 
Labor  message  to  Congress  last  fall  says,  "  To  an- 
alyze the  particulars  in  the  demands  or  labor  is  to 
admit  the  justice  of  their  complaint " ;  and  then  goes 
on  for  some  two  thousand  words  carefully  to  avoid 
analysis,  and  shun  particulars,  in  a  peculiarly  Wil- 
sonian  and  rainbowy  fog  of  generalities  which  in- 
clude justice  to  Labor  and  protection  of  Capital, 
also  defense  of  the  whole  people  against  the  chal- 
lenge of  any  class.  Not  one  concrete  fact  from  him 
or  any  of  the  orators.  Clearly  it  is  up  to  us  to  in- 
quire for  ourselves  just  what  Labor  does  not  get 
out  of  this  world  that  it  is  justly  entitled  to,  and 
what  Capital  does  get  that  it  does  not  earn;  in  short, 
just  what  Social  Justice  is. 

Fortunately,  this  practical,  unimaginative  country 
of  ours  recently  compiled  for  income  taxation  fairly 
exact  information  as  to  what  "Capital"  gets  out  of 
us  all;  which,  with  statistics  from  the  Census  Office, 
enables  us  to  make  a  pretty  shrewd  guess  at  the 
actual  "  divide "  between  Labor  and  Capital,  real- 
ized under  existing  constitutional  rights  of  private 
property  and  the  operation  of  natural  economic  law. 
After  digesting  this  information  we  can  then  go 
on  to  ask  whether  any  better  basis  for  Social  Jus- 
tice can  be  devised  by  Congress  than  now  exists  in 
our  old  familiar  equality  before  the  law;  in  every 
man's  inalienable  right  to  "life,  liberty,  and  the 
pursuit  of  happiness."  We  can  ask  whether  even 
a  Wilsonian  administration  can  guarantee  to  every 
man  more  than  the  pursuit  —  say  nothing  of  the 
attainment  —  of  rainbows. 

The  year  1917  was  one  of  the  most  extraordi- 
narily active  and  prosperous  years  for  American 
industry  ever  known,  though  not  so  good  as  1916. 
War  stimulus  was  speeding  up  every  shaft  in  the 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

land,  and  war  taxation  had  not  yet  laid  its  heaviest 
hand  upon  the  corporations.  The  Commissioner  of 
Internal  Revenue  has  lately  published  the  "  Statistics 
of  Income"  of  351,426  corporations  from  income 
tax  returns  for  1917,  232,079  of  which  netted  a 
profit,  and  119,347  netted  a  loss,  for  the  year.  All 
of  them  together  paid  out  of  each  $100  of  gross 
income  the  following: 

Gross  Income $100.00 

Cost  of  goods,  mat'l  and  mfg.  labor  .    .     $51.59 

Labor  other  than  mfg $7-72  \ 

Salaries      1.42} 

Miscellaneous  overhead  cost  (not  labor)       21.41 

Interest 2.54 

Depreciation 1.97 

Local  taxes 1.24 

United  States  taxes 2.52         90.61 

Balance  remaining,  profit $9-39 

These  "  Statistics  of  Income  "  do  not  analyze  the 
cost  of  goods  to  show  how  much  of  the  $51.59  re- 
ported is  for  labor  and  how  much  for  material ;  but 
it  would  probably  be  not  far  from  right  to  assume 
the  usual  ratio  of  fifty-fifty,  or  $25.79  eac^  (°f 
course,  a  large  part  of  the  cost  of  material  also  was 
originally  for  labor) .  If  we  add  the  $9.34  reported 
for  other  labor  and  salaries,  we  reach  a  total  of 
$35-T3  cost  of  labor  out  of  $90.61  total  paid  out 
for  every  $100  taken  in  by  all  great  American  em- 
ployers, by  Capital. 

The  reader  will  note  how  small  a  part  of  the  total 
cost  of  production  was  contributed  by  human  beings 
in  the  form  of  work,  —  less  than  forty  per  cent. 
That  is,  Labor  contributed  a  shade  less  than  four 
tenths  of  the  cost  of  production,  while  Capital  contrib- 
uted the  remaining  six  tenths.  For  its  contribution 

[92] 


SOCIAL  JUSTICE 

Labor  drew  $35.13.  Meantime  for  advancing 
the  whole  $90.61  paid  out  for  labor  and  every- 
thing else,  and  for  finding  the  money  invested  in 
plant,  equipment,  and  inventories,  taking  all  the  risk 
and  doing  all  the  work  of  creating  and  managing  the 
project,  Capital  received  as  net  return  the  sum  of 
$9.39,  or  a  little  over  one  fourth  the  amount  Labor 
got.  In  other  words,  Capital  found  the  money,  took 
the  risk,  created  the  business,  contributed  six  tenths 
of  the  total  cost  of  production  and  distribution,  and 
received  as  its  reward  one  quarter  the  amount  re- 
ceived by  Labor  for  finding  no  money,  taking  no 
risk,  creating  no  business,  and  contributing  but  four 
tenths  of  the  cost.  Furthermore,  Capital  got  the 
last  $9.39  left  of  the  $100  taken  in  at  the  end,  while 
Labor  always  got  the  first  $35.13  paid  out  at  the 
beginning.  In  fact  in  most  states  Labor  is  a  pre- 
ferred creditor;  has  the  position  of  advantage  over 
everybody — a  first  lien  on  all  Capital  for  its  com- 
pensation. 

Nay,  more ;  as  five  per  cent  has  for  long  genera- 
tions been  regarded  as  a  reasonable  return  for  the 
mere  use  of  money  so  amply  secured  as  to  involve 
no  risk,  only  the  difference  between  that  figure  and 
$9-39  actually  realized  by  Capital  as  above  —  or,  if 
we  assume  an  annual  turnover  equal  to  capital  in- 
vested, a  reasonable  assumption,  $4.39  out  of  every 
$100  gross  income  —  can  justly  be  considered  as  the 
reward  of  those  who  find  the  capital  and  create  the 
enterprise,  for  their  risk,  energy,  and  ability  —  call 
it,  if  you  please,  their  work  —  as  against  $35.13  paid 
Labor  for  its  work;  and  this  in  a  most  extraordi- 
narily prosperous  year  for  American  industry,  in 
which,  nevertheless,  one  corporation  out  of  every 
three  reported  a  deficit  instead  of  a  profit. 

Granting  that  Capital  and  Labor  are  partners 

[93] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

equally  indispensable,  that  neither  can  get  along 
without  the  other,  why  in  the  name  of  Social  Justice 
should  that  partner  who  contributes  the  virtues  of 
thrift,  courage,  management,  and  work  be  asked  to 
divide  with  the  other  partner,  who  contributes  noth- 
ing but  work,  on  any  basis  more  favorable  to  the 
latter  than  the  present  ration  of  $4.39  to  $35.13? 
If  that  is  the  ratio  in  a  year  of  extraordinary  profit, 
how  can  Capital  risk  the  attempt  hereafter  to  take 
less  and  give  Labor  more;  or  what  probability  is 
there  that  Capital  will  do  so,  in  view  of  the  cer- 
tainty of  bad  years  to  come?  Ever  since  the  date 
of  Pharaoh's  dream  of  nearly  three  thousand  years 
ago,  of  the  seven  fat  kine  and  the  seven  lean  kine,  — 
the  seven  years  of  plenty  followed  by  seven  years  of 
famine,  —  it  has  been  in  order,  and  probably  was 
long  before,  for  Capital  to  look  ahead  to  periods 
of  bad  business,  and  take  precautions  to  keep  itself, 
and  incidentally  Labor,  alive  through  hard  times  as 
well  as  good.  That  is  its  duty;  and  it  can  do  Labor 
no  greater  kindness  or  larger  Social  Justice. 

Is  not  the  above  statement  fair?  Do  not  you, 
gentlemen  of  the  press,  realize  how  narrow  the 
margin  always  is?  Do  you  not  perceive  that  under 
operation  of  the  law  of  supply  and  demand  the  work- 
ingman  always  gets  out  of  the  world  substantially 
all  that  he  puts  into  it  —  collectively  considered,  that 
is,  with  the  individual  variations  common  to  all 
human  affairs?  Can  you  not  grasp  the  significance 
of  the  extraordinary  revelation  of  modern  industry 
as  a  whole  afforded  us  by  this  snapshot  taken  by  the 
Income  Tax  Collector  of  business  in  full  stride? 
Does  it  not  photograph  itself  on  your  minds  that 
that  little  $4.39  out  of  every  $100  income  is  the 
entire  target  at  which  Bolshevist,  Socialist,  Labor 
demagogue,  and  politicians,  so  fiercely  are  shoot- 

[94] 


SOCIAL  JUSTICE 

ing!  How  small  it  is!  Heaven  knows  what  fat  liv- 
ing they  all  expect  to  get  out  of  it!  They  do  not 
know  themselves,  and  are  mighty  careful  not  to  try 
to  find  out  —  only  to  roar  promises  to  stop  "profit- 
eering," and  give  it  all  to  labor,  or  the  proletariat, 
to  the  "  People." 

What  will  there  be  to  give  to  the  "  People  "  if  we 
do  stop  "profiteering,"  gentlemen?  What  do  the 
people  get  in  Darkest  Africa,  where  there  never  was 
any  profiteering;  or  in  Russia  today,  where  they 
have  just  stopped  it?  Will  you  not  look  at  the 
world  as  it  always  has  been  and  actually  is,  read 
history,  and  recognize  that  a  nation's  profiteers  are 
among  its  greatest  assets:  vital  to  its  prosperity? 
Will  you  not  remember  that  where  there  is  no  profit- 
eering there  is  no  capital;  and  where  there  is  no 
capital  there  are  none  but  beggars ;  and  where  there 
are  none  but  beggars,  there  is  also  nothing  to  beg? 

Let  us  check  up  these  Income  Tax  analyses  by 
studying  some  New  York  World  Almanac  figures  for 
1919  compiled  from  various  governmental  sources: 

Total  population,  1919 $106,736,461 

Workers  in  industries  named  below  say  .  32,000,000 
Workers  in  transportation   and  distribu- 
tion say 18,500,000 

Value  of  manufactured  products  of  U.  S.  $24,246,000,000 

Value  of  farm  products 21,386,000,000 

Value  of  mineral  and  quarry  products  .    .  5,739,000,000 

Value  of  forest  products 792,000,000 

$52,163,000,000 

Cost  transportation  and  distribution  esti- 
mated at  37.5  per  cent 19,560,000,000 

Total  value  of  products  distributed  .     $71,723,000,000 
[95] 


LABOR  IN   POLITICS 

The  above  total  value,  say  seventy-two  billion 
dollars,  divided  by  the  total  working  population, 
something  over  fifty  million  workers,  averages  about 
$1440  per  worker  as  his  entire  product  for  1919. 
If  we  allow  three  hundred  working  days  in  the  year, 
each  man  produced  value  of  about  $4.80  per  diem, 
or  for  an  eight-hour  day  60  cents  an  hour. 

Now  it  is  common  knowledge  that  common,  un- 
skilled labor  has  been  and  is  now  being  paid  45  to 
50  cents  an  hour,  and  all  sorts  of  skilled  labor  any- 
where from  75  cents  to  $i  an  hour.  Is  it  not  evi- 
dent that,  taking  labor  as  a  whole,  here  in  America 
at  least,  it  is  already  receiving  and  consuming  by 
far  the  larger  part  of  the  value  it  helps  to  create? 
Where  was  the  sound  basis  for  Mr.  Roosevelt's 
slogans  of  the  "  Square  Deal "  and  "  Social  Justice," 
upon  which  was  largely  founded  his  —  to  me  never 
very  convincing  —  appeal  to  men  of  heart  and  con- 
science that  resulted  in  the  formation  of  the  late 
Progressive  Party?  As  a  matter  of  fact  it  never 
existed,  broadly  speaking.  And  where  does  Mr. 
Gompers  expect  to  get  the  "  more,  more,  more " 
that  he  demands  for  Labor?  As  the  old  farmer 
adage  has  it:  "You  cannot  get  milk  from  a  dry 
cow."  If  Labor  in  this  country,  assisted  by  Capital 
and  brains,  is  producing  total  value  of  60  cents  per 
hour,  and  drawing  from  45  cents  to  $i  per  hour 
wages,  two  things  are  positively  certain  —  first,  that 
labor  generally  is  not  being  robbed,  or  even  "  ex- 
ploited," by  capital;  and  second,  that  its  only  way 
to  get  "more,  more,  more"  is  to  produce  more,  more, 
more.  When  Mr.  Gompers  instigates  his  followers 
to  produce  less,  less,  less,  he  is  simply  their  worst 
enemy. 

Let  us  verify  this  from  yet  other  statistics.  The 
Census  Bureau  made  an  unofficial  estimate  of  the 

[96] 


SOCIAL  JUSTICE 

wealth  of  the  United  States,  Dec.  31,  1917,  as  220,- 
ooo  million  dollars;  the  Department  of  Commerce 
the  same  year  estimated  228,000  millions.  The 
population  was  estimated  at  103  millions.  Our 
wealth,  therefore,  averaged  say  $2213  for  every 
man,  woman,  and  child;  and  if  we  accept  the  roll 
made  by  the  Selective  Draft  Bureau  in  1917  of 
48,282,911  workers,  and  call  it  now,  including  natu- 
ral increase,  50  millions  in  1919,  our  wealth  aver- 
ages $4560  per  worker.  That  sum  would  be  each 
wageworker's  fortune,  man  or  woman,  if  President 
Gompers  were  to  take  everything  —  land,  buildings, 
plants,  railroads,  food,  clothing,  automobiles,  and 
hard  cash  —  and  divide  all  equally  among  Rocke- 
feller, Morgan,  himself,  and  the  rest  of  us. 

Now  let  us  suppose,  though  by  no  means  certain, 
that  when  thus  divided  each  man's  fortune  would 
earn  him  the  fair  dividend  of  six  per  cent  on  his 
$4560,  or  $273.60  per  annum.  That  would  come 
to  90  cents  a  day  for  each  worker  in  addition  to  the 
wage  he  gets  now,  reserving  nothing  whatever  for 
capital;  that  is,  if  we  assume,  which  we  have  every 
reason  to  doubt,  that  our  national  capital,  if  divided 
up  as  above,  and  no  longer  managed  by  captains  of 
industry  for  their  own  benefit,  would  yield  the  90 
cents  per  day,  the  six  per  cent  in  question  —  as  to 
which  more  hereafter. 

How  far,  gentlemen  of  the  press,  and  may  I  add 
also,  gentlemen  of  the  pulpit,  the  forum,  and  the 
soap  box—  how  far  would  90  cents  a  day  go  to 
satisfy  Mr.  Gompers'  "  more,  more,  more  for 
Labor"?  Why,  as  I  write  (April  12,  1920),  the 
railway  switchmen,  freight  handlers,  clerks,  etc., 
are  breaking  loose  from  his  organizations  on  an 
"outlaw"  strike,  demanding  from  $1.60  to  $2.40 
a  day  increase  of  pay.  I  have  heard  talk  even  of 

[97] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

the  following  Labor  slogan:  "Five  hours  and  five 
dollars  a  day,  five  days  a  week." 

While  clarifying  our  thought,  however,  let  us  not 
make  the  mistake  of  assuming  that  Mr.  Gompers 
wants  merely  an  "  even  divide."  The  only  way  his 
Organized  Labor  can  earn  "more,  more,  more," 
while  producing  less,  less,  less,  is  to  remain  as  it 
is  now:  a  compact,  predatory  minority;  holding  up 
the  majority  by  strikes  in  strategic  industries,  such 
as  coal,  railroad,  etc.,  for  more  than  its  fair  share! 
The  228,000  millions  of  our  wealth,  which  I  as- 
sumed above  for  the  sake  of  argument  to  divide 
equally,  does  not  to  any  great  extent  belong  to  Wall 
Street.  Over  100,000  millions  of  it  was  in  land, 
farms,  and  homes  owned  by  good  plain  American 
citizens  everywhere;  another  50,000  millions  was  in 
goods,  live  stock,  food,  clothing,  furniture,  and  was 
also  scattered  broadcast,  bearing  no  coupons,  yield- 
ing no  income.  If  we  leave  out  of  consideration  the 
land,  which  was  not  made  by  us,  the  remaining  128,- 
ooo  millions  of  our  wealth,  which  we  did  produce, 
totals  all  we  have  accumulated  since  Columbus  dis- 
covered our  country  —  all  that  is  left  to  us  out  of  an 
output  now  62,602  millions  of  dollars  a  year.  That 
is  to  say,  our  entire  savings  from  the  foundation  of 
the  American  Republic  to  date  are  just  about  two 
years'  present  receipts.  Since  1900  we  have  gained 
in  wealth  about  99,222  millions,  or  an  average  of 
5222  millions  a  year  from  an  average  population 
of  ninety-one  and  a  half  millions.  We  put  by  but 
$57  apiece  annually. 

Once  more,  gentlemen  of  the  press  and  the  pulpit: 
do  you  grasp  the  significance  of  the  figures  as  throw- 
ing light  on  the  question  whether  "  Social  Justice  " 
has  been  done?  If  we  assume  the  same  proportion 
(47  per  cent  of  workers  to  total  population)  as  in 

[98] 


SOCIAL  JUSTICE 

1919  for  the  nineteen  years  just  preceding,  then  of 
the  ninety-one  and  a  half  millions  average  popula- 
tion for  that  period  some  forty-four  millions  were 
workers;  and  the  above  saving  of  5222  millions 
averaged  $119  apiece.  Allowing  three  hundred 
working  days  in  the  year,  our  accumulated  wealth 
for  that  period  comes  to  less  than  40  cents  per 
worker  per  day. 

You  will  probably  admit,  gentlemen,  that  during 
the  last  nineteen  years  our  workers  (who  produced 
$4.80  per  day  in  1919)  must  have  produced  an  aver- 
age value  of  at  least  $3  per  day  per  worker,  taking 
men  and  women  together.  If  so,  since  the  40  cents 
per  day  was  all  that  accumulated  in  the  shape  of 
capital,  we  must  necessarily  have  spent  the  rest,  or 
an  average  of  $2.60  per  day.  That  is,  we  spent 
87  per  cent,  and  somebody,  including  the  wicked 
Wall  Streeters,  saved  as  capital  13  per  cent  of  our 
gross  income.  But  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  a 
very  considerable  part  of  that  13  per  cent  saved  still 
belongs  to  Labor.  There  were  in  1919  no  fewer 
than  11,400,000  savings  banks  depositors,  and  away 
back  in  1910  even  there  were  17,805,000  dwellings 
and  6,717,000  farms  —  most  of  them  small,  owned 
by  workers. 

While  it  is  difficult  in  making  up  so  rough  and 
sketchy  an  outline  of  so  very  large  a  subject  to 
draw  exact  conclusions,  it  is  my  own  conviction 
from  this  and  former  studies  along  parallel  lines 
that  laborers  —  the  ivageworkers  in  general,  those 
for  whom  "Social  Justice"  is  demanded  —  actually 
receive,  and  nine  tenths  of  them  actually  spend, 
somewhere  from  90  to  95  per  cent  of  all  we  pro- 
duce. About  one  tenth  of  them  save  something,  and 
help  to  accumulate  the  nation's  capital.  I  do  not 
believe  our  nation  as  a  whole  saves  more  than  five 

[99] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

per  cent  of  its  annual  turnover;  but  whatever  we  do 
save  in  the  shape  of  bank  deposits,  whoever  owns 
them,  is  invested  by  modern  finance  in  modern  in- 
dustry and  distribution,  to  the  conspicuous  benefit 
of  our  own  laboring  classes  as  wageworkers. 

The  recent  years  of  war  activity  have  caused  an 
intensive  development  of  industry  and  an  apparent 
augmentation  of  capital,  the  real  worth  and  solidity 
of  which  cannot  certainly  be  told  before  commerce 
comes  back  to  normal  once  more.  Leaving  these 
feverish  years  out,  for  the  purpose  of  this  discus- 
sion, I  doubt  whether  normal  accumulation  of  wealth 
exceeds  five  per  cent,  as  guessed  above.  The  other 
ninety-five  per  cent,  as  I  see  it,  is  distributed  by  the 
cold  and  impartial  law  of  supply  and  demand  from 
day  to  day  and  week  to  week  with  evenhanded 
"  Social  Justice,"  that  is  to  say,  to  each  worker,  large 
or  small,  strong  or  feeble,  fast  or  slow,  in  propor- 
tion to  the  service  he  individually  renders  to  the  com- 
munity in  return  for  his  own  daily  contribution  to 
the  common  welfare. 

If  he  is  but  one  of  many  thousands  of  working- 
men  doing  each  some  obscure  part  of  the  vast  work 
of  a  great  employer,  his  personal  contribution  is 
comparatively  slight,  and  often  quite  useless  with- 
out the  contributions  of  hundreds  of  his  fellows. 
His  individual  reward,  though  labor  in  the  aggre- 
gate must  first  and  last  receive  as  above  95  per  cent 
of  the  total  value  it  helps  to  create,  is  necessarily 
small  compared  with  that  of  the  great  organizer, 
who  coordinates  hundreds  or  thousands  of  like  con- 
tributions into  one  great  river  of  service  to  mankind. 
Consider  Rockefeller,  for  instance,  whose  tank 
wagons  bring  kerosene  oil  to  every  farmer's  door 
on  the  remotest  back-country  road.  Rockefeller  him- 
self, the  creator  and  maintainer  of  that  service  to 

[ioo] 


SOCIAL  JUSTICE 

the  farmer,  is  justly  entitled  to  this  last  five  per  cent 
(if  indeed  he  gets  that  much)  of  the  cash  paid  by 
the  farmer  for  his  gallon  of  kerosene,  after  having 
paid  out  in  advance  ninety-five  per  cent  thereof  for 
cost  of  production  and  distribution,  all  the  way  from 
the  bowels  of  the  earth  in  Oklahoma  to  the  farm- 
house in  Maine  or  Australia.  Without  Rocke- 
feller all  the  thousands  of  workmen  of  the  Standard 
Oil  would  never  have  done  that  service  to  the 
farmer;  without  Swift  and  Armour  all  the  packing- 
house butchers  in  Chicago  would  never  have  laid 
down  a  pound  of  bacon  at  the  battle  front  in  France. 

Is  not  this  the  truth?  In  all  history,  in  every  in- 
dustry, brains  has  always  been,  always  will  be,  and 
ought  to  be,  the  great  profiteer.  Without  brains, 
without  management,  neither  Capital  nor  Labor  re- 
ceives its  fair  reward.  Neither  of  them  deserves, 
and  neither  of  them  ever  receives,  the  measure  of 
reward  earned  by  brains.  Hence  Rockefeller,  and 
Armour,  and  Ford;  and  also  Abraham  and  Solomon 
in  their  day  —  all  of  them,  rightly,  profiteers. 

Or  consider  the  case  of  another  who  might  be 
called  one  of  the  great  modern  profiteers — Mary 
Pickford.  By  means  of  the  great  machinery  built 
up  by  the  "  movie  "  men,  Mary's  pretty  smile  is  said 
to  please  some  eight  hundred  thousand  people  every 
day  in  the  United  States  alone.  She  is  said  to  realize 
a  million  dollars  a  year  income,  or  three  thousand 
dollars  a  day  out  of  the  situation.  That  would  be 
about  three  eighths  of  a  cent  from  each  person  to 
whom  she  gives  pleasure,  out  of  the  perhaps  fifteen 
cents  on  the  average  paid  by  all  at  the  box  office. 
In  the  aggregate  she  takes  a  colossal  sum  out  of  the 
pockets  of  the  "  People  " ;  but  does  she  not  deserve 
it?  Does  not  each  one  of  them  get  the  pleasure,  the 
human  service,  expected  from  Mary,  well  "worth 

[101] 

UNIVERSITY  OF  SOUTHERN  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

the  price  of  admission,"  all  of  it?  Would  there  be 
any  social  justice  in  depriving  her,  by  law  or  other- 
wise, of  her  minute  reward  from  each  and  every 
one?  I  have  never  heard  any  one  suggest  such  a 
thing;  and  I  doubt  if  any  one  ever  thought  of  it, 
except  myself,  in  this  search  for  an  illustration  of 
the  just  reward  for  social  service.  Yet  it  is  precisely 
as  socially  unjust  to  deprive  Rockefeller  of  his  frac- 
tion of  a  cent  per  gallon,  or  Armour  of  his  fraction 
of  a  cent  per  pound  of  beef,  merely  because  one  or 
other  of  them  has  created  the  machinery  to  serve 
many  million  people.  When  Mary  was  a  little  un- 
known actress  on  a  single  stage  of  an  old-style  theater 
her  smile  was  just  as  pretty,  I  suppose;  yet  it  could 
reach  but  a  few  hundred  people,  and  cost  them,  say, 
$i  apiece.  Now  eight  hundred  thousand  enjoy  it  at 
15  cents  apiece.  Does  she  not  deserve  her  reward 
from  each  one  just  the  same,  or  even  more?  Though 
much  of  her  work  is  mere  trashy  sentimentality,  and 
though  many  regard  the  "  movie  shows  "  as  on  the 
whole  demoralizing  and  wasteful  of  great  opportun- 
ity, do  not  the  "  movie  "  magnates  deserve  their  re- 
ward also  when  they  bring  harmless  pleasure  into  the 
lives  of  hard-working  men  and  women? 

Not  only  are  the  great  employers,  financiers,  and 
captains  of  industry  entitled  in  all  social  justice  to 
the  minute  reward  they  get  from  each  of  these  they 
serve,  but  they  equally  deserve  their  reward  from 
those  they  employ,  to  whom  they  offer,  in  competi- 
tion with  others,  an  opportunity  to  earn  an  honest 
livelihood.  Whether  we  pretend  with  Karl  Marx 
that  employers  steal  from  their  laborers  the  surplus 
value  created  by  them,  or  tell  the  truth,  viz.,  that 
they  collect  from  their  customers  the  cost  of  service 
plus  their  own  reward  for  rendering  it,  either  way 
they  cause  each  to  serve  the  other,  and  are  entitled 

[102] 


SOCIAL  JUSTICE 

to  reward  from  every  one  of  both  elements  in  So- 
ciety. It  is  the  unchanging  law  of  trade  that  as  the 
groups  served  grow  larger  the  reward  from  each 
member  for  service  rendered  grows  smaller.  Never- 
theless in  the  aggregate  it  is  huge,  and  it  is  justly 
deserved.  Social  Justice  is  done! 

I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  in  the  endless  flux  of 
individual  circumstance  and  trade  conditions  fre- 
quent cases  of  personal  misfortune,  bad  faith,  wrong 
and  injustice,  do  not  occur.  They  are  bound  to  occur 
in  the  nature  of  human  frailty.  But  no  political  in- 
stitution in  all  history  has  actually  gone  so  far  to 
even  up  chances  between  man  and  man,  and  to  open 
a  vista  of  prosperity  to  us  all,  as  the  individual  lib- 
erty and  property  right  guaranteed  by  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States. 

In  fine,  I  believe  that  entirely  free  and  untram- 
meled  operation  of  the  law  of  supply  and  demand  is 
the  nearest  human  approximation  to  "  Social  Jus- 
tice," as  the  colossal  failure,  here  and  abroad,  one 
after  the  other,  of  recent  bureaucratic  attempts  to 
fix  fair  wages,  prices,  distribution,  and  production 
of  commodities  has  most  abundantly  shown.  My 
profound  conviction  is  that  the  less  political  med- 
dling there  is  the  greater  social  justice!  We  have 
become  the  most  prosperous  people  on  earth,  from 
top  to  bottom  of  the  social  scale,  by  letting  able  men 
make  large  fortunes.  We  ought  to  keep  our  system 
going  as  it  has  been,  until  at  least  something  that 
gives  better  results  has  been  shown  us. 


[103] 


CHAPTER   XIII 

FURTHER  CLARIFICATION.     MENACE  OF  CEN- 
TRALIZED LABOR  CONTROL 

THERE  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  country  perceives 
clearly  enough  that  these  giant  strike  machines  are  a 
menace  to  a  free  people;  that  in  the  very  nature  of 
modern  life  a  few  laborers  who  man  the  switches, 
valves,  and  tracks  of  our  great  utilities,  the  terminals 
of  our  railroads,  our  coal  mines,  police  forces,  hos- 
pitals, etc.,  can  inflict  unbearable  disaster  on  us  all 
by  quitting  work  all  at  once.  Day  by  day  the  talk 
grows  louder  and  louder  that  the  community  has 
the  right,  nay  more,  the  duty,  certainly  the  power, 
to  protect  itself.  Nevertheless,  in  our  jealousy  of 
the  individual  liberty  of  the  free  American  citizen, 
in  our  sympathy  with  the  poor  workingman  as 
against  the  rich  corporation,  in  our  anxiety  to  do 
"  Social  Justice,"  we  hesita-te  to  do  our  duty  and 
exert  our  power. 

Meantime,  Mr.  Gompers  thunders  out  the  defiant 
assertion  of  the  right  to  organize,  the  right  to  strike, 
and  the  right  to  bargain  collectively;  denounces  as 
compelling  "  involuntary  servitude "  any  law  for- 
bidding railway  strikes;  declares  un-American  and 
undemocratic  laws  forbidding  the  formation  of 
unions  affiliated  with  the  A.  F.  L.  among  government 
or  municipal  employees. 

Governor  Coolidge  quietly  rejoins  to  Gompers' 
fulminations,  that  "there  is  no  right  to  strike 

[104] 


MISCHIEF   OF   CENTRALIZATION 

against  the  public  safety,  by  anybody,  any  place,  any 
time,"  a  shot  that  hits  the  bull's-eye. 

The  issue  is  joined,  and  in  meeting  it  we  clearly 
need  further  clarification  of  ideas.  Washington  dis- 
patches of  April  ii  say  that  the  Republican  Na- 
tional Committee  has  submitted  a  "questionnaire" 
to  Mr.  Gompers  to  ask  his  orders,  or  perhaps  his 
objects,  in  entering  the  campaign  of  1920.  Here 
they  are  as  he  gives  them: 

A  forty- four-hour  week  (perhaps  forty-eight). 

The  right  to  organize,  even  government  employees  and 
teachers. 

Exemption  of  labor  from  anti  Trust  laws. 

Right  of  employees  to  bargain  through  outsiders,  not  co- 
employees. 

The  right  to  strike,  even  against  public  welfare. 

Abolition  of  injunctions  in  labor  disputes. 

Free  United  States  Government  Employment  Agencies, 
presumably  monopolies,  in  whose  management  Labor 
shall  have  a  voice. 

Wages  raised  to  point  obviating  need  of  pensions,  etc. 

Equal  pay  for  equal  work  of  man  or  woman. 

No  child  labor  below  sixteen  years  of  age. 

Elimination  of  employers'  welfare  and  uplift  work,  mo- 
nopoly of  such  work  by  labor  organizations. 

Opposition  to  Kansas  Industrial  Court  as  "  antidemo- 
cratic." 

Legalization  of  the  sympathetic  strike. 

Legalization  of  the  boycott,  as  last  resort. 

Of  these  objects,  the  forty-four-hour  week,  wages 
obviating  pensions,  etc.,  and  no  child  labor  need  no 
particular  discussion  here;  but  the  others  are  vitally 
interesting.  If  attained  they  will  continue  that  huge, 
rich,  irresponsible,  centralized  labor  autocracy  which 
Mr.  Gompers  now  dominates,  and  is  determined  to 
perpetuate  through  the  ballot  by  election  of  subser- 

[105] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

vient  Congressmen.  It  is  time  to  wake  up,  open  our 
eyes,  understand  him,  and  beat  him  at  the  polls. 

To  begin  with,  most  of  us  have  carelessly  and 
sympathetically  interpreted  his  demand,  "  the  right 
to  organize,"  as  meaning  merely,  that  a  lot  of  poor 
fellows  hired  by  the  day  by  a  rich  employer,  subject 
to  discharge  without  notice,  with  or  without  reason, 
ought  to  be  allowed  to  get  together  for  their  own 
benefit  and  say  to  their  employer:  "  It  is  one  out,  all 
out,  with  us.  We  have  talked  our  jobs  over  with 
each  other,  and  if  you  cannot  change  them  to  suit 
us  we  will  all  quit  at  once.  If  you  can  stand  it  we 
can.  We  are  not  satisfied  as  we  are." 

Thus  interpreted,  we  have  said:  "That  is  perfectly 
fair.  The  employer  can  drop  men  without  notice; 
singly  they  would  have  little  chance  against  him; 
acting  together  the  balance  is  more  even." 

But  Gompers'  "  right  to  organize  "  means  much 
more  than  a  mere  union  of  employees  of  one  em- 
ployer spontaneously  associating  themselves  for 
"  collective  bargaining  "  with  that  employer. 

Here  is,  let  us  say,  a  factory  force  of  men  who 
have  never  been  "  organized,"  who  have  come  vol- 
untarily one  by  one  to  accept  jobs  from  the  same 
employer  because  they  were  individually  satisfied 
with  work  and  wages  offered.  Seeing  them  thus  hap- 
pily and  busily  employed,  Mr.  Gompers,  or  one  of 
his  lieutenants,  says  to  himself:  "Here  are  five  hun- 
dred men  who  are  not  paying  union  dues.  Let  us 
organize  them."  So  he  sends  well-paid  organizers, 

—  his  unions  have  plenty  of  money,  —  one  for  each 
craft  employed;  let  us  say  one  for  the  carpenters, 
one  for  the   blacksmiths,   one   for  the  machinists, 

—  to  invite  each  workman  to  join  a  local  union  of 
his  own  craft  whose  existing  members  work  for  the 
most  part  in  other  shops.    There  may  easily  be  five 

[106] 


MISCHIEF  OF   CENTRALIZATION 

or  ten  unions  that  take  part  in  unionizing  this  shop, 
each  of  which  is  affiliated  with  a  national  organiza- 
tion of  like  unions,  which  in  turn  is  tied  into  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor.  The  local  unions 
are  also  sub-federated  into  state  and  city  Federations. 

In  consequence,  the  unlucky  shop  thus  organized 
finds  its  labor  troubles  tied  and  cross-tied,  tangled 
and  cross-tangled,  into  those  of  a  perfectly  indefinite 
number  of  other  shops,  trades,  and  localities,  with 
ramifications  which  no  man  can  possibly  forecast; 
yet  always,  "  Bunty  pulls  the  strings,"  all  of  which 
lead  back  into  one  central,  powerful,  and  irrespon- 
sible grip,  that  of  the  master  of  the  A.  F.  L. 

Next  comes  the  "demand"  for  "collective  bar- 
gaining"; that  the  employer  shall  modify  his  existing 
offer  of  work,  wages,  and  conditions,  whether  or  not 
it  suits  his  will  or  pocket  to  do  so,  in  order  to  remove 
"  grievances "  oftentimes  formulated  quite  outside 
his  own  shop  or  force;  that  he  shall  deal  with  men 
foreign  to  his  employ  and  be  controlled  by  conditions 
over  which  he  has  no  control ;  that  he  shall  "  recog- 
nize" the  union,  and  ignore  or  discharge  old  em- 
ployees who  do  not  choose  to  join  it,  or  be  punished 
by  a  strike;  that  whether  he  will  or  no,  he  shall  deal 
not  with  individuals  as  before,  but  with  a  collectivity, 
whose  orders  (and  not  his)  the  man  who  takes  his 
money  shall  obey. 

I  submit  to  you,  gentlemen  of  the  press,  that 
not  in  good  conscience,  in  law,  or  in  constitutional 
guarantees,  can  there  be  found  any  warrant  for 
stretching  the  so  far  unquestioned  right  of  the  in- 
dividual, free,  American  workman  to  unite  with  his 
co-employees  in  peaceful  refusal  to  continue  work, 
or  accept  wages  offered  by  his  own  employer,  into  the 
right  of  outsiders  —  say  Mr.  Gompers  with  his  huge 
and  immensely  wealthy  strike  machine  —  to  spend 

[107] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

millions  in  organizing  all  labor,  in  all  employments, 
into  one  great  Prussian  army,  strategically  disposed 
to  coerce  single  employers,  one  by  one,  or  at  will  to 
paralyze  whole  industries,  even  the  life  of  the  nation; 
by  the  local,  or  regional,  or  general  strike,  original 
or  sympathetic,  or  by  the  boycott,  involving  countless 
innocent  sufferers  in  no  way  parties  to  the  dispute. 

Yet  just  this  absolute,  centralized,  irresponsible 
power,  to  starve,  freeze,  rob  us  all  and  singular; 
"the  right  to  strike  against  the  public  safety,"  as 
Governor  Coolidge  puts  it,  is  precisely  what  Mr. 
Gompers  openly  demands  of  the  Republican  Na- 
tional Committee  in  reply  to  inquiry.  "The  right 
to  organize"  means  to  Gompers  nothing  less  than 
the  centralized  autocracy  of  the  Federation  of 
Labor,  with  which,  according  to  Gompers'  closing 
words  (on  page  474  of  the  Report),  the  railway 
Brotherhoods  now  affiliate.  "  Exemption  from  anti- 
trust laws"  means  that  "Labor"  may  commit  cer- 
tain crimes  without  criminal  penalty.  "  The  right  of 
employees;  to  bargain  through  representatives  not  of 
their  own  number"  means  that  employers  shall  be 
compelled  by  law  to  bargain  with  their  employees 
only  through  the  A.  F.  L.  Collective  bargaining 
means  compulsory  bargaining,  forced  on  the  em- 
ployer by  Organized  Labor. 

"The  right  to  strike"  demanded  for  government 
employees  and  railway  men  means  that  the  A.  F.  L. 
may  at  any  time  hold  up  the  life  of  the  community. 
"Abolition  of  injunctions  in  labor  disputes"  means 
that  the  courts  shall  not  in  advance  restrain  strikers 
from  doing  violence  and  crime,  but  shall  permit  them 
to  do  both,  running  only  the  slight  risks  of  trial  by 
jury,  with  punishment  if  any,  long  after  irreparable 
mischief  has  been  done  —  all  of  which  quite  suits 
Labor. 

[108] 


MISCHIEF  OF   CENTRALIZATION 

For  fear  that  workingmen  may  still  steer  clear  of 
organization,  Mr.  Gompcrs  would  create  a  govern- 
ment monopoly  of  the  employment  agency  business, 
in  whose  management  the  Federation  shall  have  a 
voice ;  that  is  to  say,  there  would  be  but  one  office  to 
which  a  laborer  can  turn  for  a  job,  managed  by 
friends  of  the  Federation,  though  paid  for  out  of 
the  public  purse.  He  would  also  forbid  by  law  that 
any  welfare  or  uplift  work  be  done  by  employers, 
and  give  to  Organized  Labor  a  monopoly  of  that 
work  too,  apparently  urging  such  monopoly  for  fear 
that  welfare  work  is  a  little  game  of  employers  to 
promote  friendship  and  good  will  with  their  em- 
ployees. 

Finally,  Mr.  Gompers  demands  of  his  Republican 
friends  opposition  to  the  Kansas  industrial  courts, 
just  as  he  has  always  voiced  opposition  to  every 
proposal  —  whether  coming  from  Congress,  the  ad- 
ministration, the  employers,  or  the  press  —  looking 
toward  any  kind  of  impartial  justice,  compulsory 
arbitration,  prohibition  of  strikes,  direct  dealing  be- 
tween employers  and  individual  employees,  or  limita- 
tion of  negotiations  to  the  single  establishment  with 
its  own  men,  disentangled  from  all  others. 

In  short,  Mr.  Gompers  has  the  simple  but  gigantic 
conception  and  purpose  of  coaxing,  sweeping,  or 
driving  all  of  the  whales  or  minnows  of  Labor  and 
Capital  into  one  vast  dragnet  of  which  he  holds  the 
draw-string,  letting  not  a  single  one  escape  to  the 
ocean  of  lawful  liberty;  now  and  then  hauling  the 
whole  struggling,  gasping  mass  out  onto  the  sand, 
taking  part  for  food,  and  throwing  back  the  rest 
until  he  wants  more. 

Or  perhaps,  looking  further  ahead,  Mr.  Gompers 
realizes,  as  you  gentlemen  must  realize,  that  though 
government  is  the  greatest  of  all  human  activities, 

[109] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

yet  collectively  the  industries  are  greater  than  gov- 
ernment, and  he  who  dominates  them  will  dominate 
government  also. 

The  coal  and  railway  strikes,  the  current  general 
strikes  in  Germany  and  Ireland  to  which  their  re- 
spective governments  seem  to  be  yielding  as  I  write, 
this  1 4th  of  April,  prove  the  assertion.  The  able 
master  of  the  Federation  of  Labor  knows  that  if 
but  that  small  fraction  of  our  labor  which  mans  our 
coal  mines,  our  transportation  and  public  utilities, 
can  be  held  together  in  one  compact  machine,  obedi- 
ent to  his  hand;  if,  as  he  dreams,  the  voting  power  of 
that  same  fraction  can  be  thrown  solidly  by  him  to 
this  or  that  subservient  politician,  obedient  to  his 
order;  if,  as  he  demands  of  the  Congressmen  and 
other  "statesmen"  whom  he  owns,  the  gates  of 
crime  are  thrown  open  to  his  machine  and  the  de- 
fenses of  law  thrown  down  before  it;  if  the  nation, 
the  state,  the  city,  the  railway,  the  private  employer, 
the  vast  non-union  majority  of  labor,  are  bound  hand 
and  foot  by  statute  and  thrown  under  his  car  of 
Juggernaut;  if,  I  say,  his  modest  dream  comes  true, 
why  should  Mr.  Gompers  start  a  labor  "  Party," 
or  waste  his  time  upon  the  Presidency  of  the  United 
States?  He  sounds  sincere  when  he  proudly  says: 
"  I  have  been  the  President  of  the  A.  F.  L.  for  many, 
many  years.  I  regard  that  position  as  the  most  ex- 
alted I  could  occupy."  Verily,  as  things  are  today, 
the  Capitol  Hill  at  Washington,  held  by  Democrats, 
—  or  Republicans,  "Arcades  ambo"  —  offers  but  a 
broad  and  easy  gradient  for  Labor's  motor  car,  its 
armored  "  tank,"  as  it  were,  to  roll  up  and  onto  the 
top  of  the  world.  How  much  more  magnificent 
would  its  master  be  if  his  "  guiding  hope  .  .  .  for  a 
still  greater  organization  of  the  yet  unorganized,  the 
skilled  and  unskilled  man  and  woman  of  whatever 

[no] 


MISCHIEF   OF   CENTRALIZATION 

color,  creed,  or  religion "  should  come  to  pass ! 
Think  of  adding,  in  this  country  alone,  say  forty  mil- 
lion more  workers,  with  at  least  four  hundred  mil- 
lion dollars  more  annual  dues,  to  the  strength  and 
resources  of  this  colossal  private  machine!  Why 
need  he  bother  with  representative  government  as 
guaranteed  by  the  Constitution  after  Labor  takes 
charge?  One  organization,  as  he  says,  would  "  func- 
tion perfectly." 

Gentlemen  of  the  press,  there  can  be  but  one  gov- 
ernment in  these  United  States !  Ole  Hanson  hit 
and  rang  the  bell  of  American  public  opinion  when 
he  said  to  the  I.  W.  W.  leaders  at  Seattle,  "  The  seat 
of  City  Government  is  at  the  City  Hall."  Calvin 
Coolidge  hit  it  when  he  said,  "  There  is  no  right  to 
strike  against  the  public  safety,  by  anybody,  any 
place,  any  time." 


[ni] 


CHAPTER   XIV 

CENTRALIZED   ARBITRATION    FAILS 

To  begin  with,  centralized  arbitration  is  weak,  be- 
cause Mr.  Gompers  fights  the  creation  of  compulsory 
peace  machinery,  such  as  industrial  courts  or  tri- 
bunals of  arbitration,  by  whose  decrees  labor  must 
be  bound,  and  indeed  opposes  every  move  whatever 
for  making  and  keeping  industrial  peace,  unless  made 
by  and  through  the  Federation  of  Labor.  Washing- 
ton dispatches  of  March  20  quote  him  upon  the 
recommendations  of  President  Wilson's  second  In- 
dustrial Conference  as  follows: 

"The  Conference  has  devised  a  mass  of  ma- 
chinery to  be  made  effective  by  law,  composed  of  a 
national  industrial  board,  and  local  and  regional 
conferences  or  boards  of  inquiry.  The  whole  situa- 
tion in  this  respect  may  be  summed  up  as  follows : 

"  Tried  and  tested  machinery  for  conciliation  and 
arbitration  between  employers  and  employees  exists 
wherever  employees  are  organized.  This  machinery 
functions  perfectly  wherever  employers  forsake  the 
spirit  of  dominance  and  the  attitude  of  autocracy. 
No  machinery  devised  or  supervised  by  the  govern- 
ment .  .  .  could  achieve  results  superior  ...  In 
industries  where  the  employees  are  not  organized, 
no  machinery  of  any  kind,  whether  supervised  by 
governmental  agencies  or  otherwise,  can  produce  in- 
dustrial justice  .  .  .  With  organization  of  workers 
no  structure  of  machinery  need  be  thrust  upon  it 

[H2] 


CENTRALIZED   ARBITRATION   FAILS 

from  the  outside  ...  It  is  to  be  feared  that  the 
[President's]  Commission  views  industry  from  the 
viewpoint  of  the  single  shop,  and  builds  its  machin- 
ery on  the  theory  that  disputes  are  to  be  settled  shop 
by  shop.  If  such  a  viewpoint  is  actually  to  be  carried 
into  operation  it  will  be  most  disastrous.  Unavoid- 
ably, organization  with  independent  shop  units  of 
the  employees  is  a  menace  to  the  workers,  for  the 
reason  that  it  organizes  them  away  from  each  other 
and  puts  them  in  a  position  where  shop  may  be  played 
against  shop.  Not  only  the  welfare  of  the  workers 
but  the  best  economy  for  the  nation  demands  that 
industry,  in  so  far  as  possible,  be  viewed  in  a  national 
light  and  that  the  workers  be  united  into  organiza- 
tions covering  whole  industries,  as  is  now  the  case 
with  the  one  hundred  and  twenty  national  and  inter- 
national trade-unions." 

Certainly  no  words  of  mine  could  etch  President 
Gompers'  portrait  more  clearly.  "UEtat?  C'est 
moil "  said  the  French  king.  What  is  the  use  of 
government?  says  Gompers.  My  Federation  of 

Labor  is  all  that  is  needed,  provided  those  d d 

employers  will  just  take  off  their  hats,  walk  up  to 
the  captain's  office,  and  settle.  We  can  do  it  all, 
organize  the  men  ourselves,  dig  up  a  grievance  our- 
selves, call  a  strike  ourselves,  decide  work  and  wages 
ourselves,  fix  both  sides  of  a  "  collective  bargain  " 
ourselves,  call  off  or  keep  up  the  strike  ourselves, 
and  remain  entirely  irresponsible  all  through,  our- 
selves. "  The  fact  of  the  whole  matter  is  that  the 
President's  Commission,  even  though  prompted  by 
the  best  of  motives,  has  neither  the  experience  nor 
the  understanding  of  the  history  of  the  methods  and 
purposes  of  the  Organized  Labor  Movement,"  etc., 
says  the  master  of  the  A.  F.  L. 

It  is  kind  of  Gompers,  though  a  bit  patronizing,  to 
[113] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

let  Messrs.  Hoover,  Rosenwald,  and  their  associates 
of  the  second  Industrial  Conference,  down  so  easily 
—  as  merely  stupid,  not  evil  intentioned;  but  they 
are  not  such  fools  after  all.  Gompers  says :  "  Where 
the  employees  are  not  organized,  no  machinery,  of 
any  kind,  whether  supervised  by  governmental  agen- 
cies or  otherwise,  can  produce  industrial  justice." 
How  then  does  he  explain  the  huge  fact  set  forth 
and  established  in  Chapters  VIII  and  IX  supra,  that 
for  the  last  forty  years  unorganized  labor  has  gained 
in  wages  and  conditions  of  employment  more  and 
faster  than  Organized  Labor?  Does  he  consider 
it  industrial  injustice  that  non-union  labor  has  so 
gained?  Again  he  says:  "This  machinery  [the 
A.  F.  L.]  functions  perfectly  wherever  employers 
forsake  the  spirit  of  dominance  and  the  attitude 
of  autocracy."  Let  me,  as  commentary  on  this 
last,  tell  a  short  story  of  my  own  experience  with 
the  A.  F.  L.  in  a  typewriter  factory  of  which  I  was 
head. 

In  1903,  after  two  attempts  in  1901  and  1902, 
the  Chicago  Federation  of  Labor  unionized  my  men 
and  called  them  out,  after  having  worked  seven  years 
in  peace  before  the  organizers  came.  (The  latter, 
by  the  way,  got  a  commission  of  two  dollars  a  man 
for  organizing  two  hundred  and  seventy  men.)  Six 
unions  participated,  —  engineers,  machinists,  metal- 
workers, screw  machine  men,  polishers,  and  japan- 
ners.  The  Chicago  Federation  delegates  handled 
the  strike.  I  could  not,  though  I  tried  hard  to  do 
so,  "  bargain  collectively "  with  the  six  "  business 
agents  "  who  kept  on  visiting  me  for  nearly  eleven 
weeks,  because  they  were  running  strikes  at  the  same 
time  in  a  harvester  works,  an  ice  machine  factory, 
a  saw  factory,  a  switchboard  works,  all  of  which  em- 
ployed members  of  the  same  unions  as  we  did,  but 

[114] 


CENTRALIZED   ARBITRATION   FAILS 

whose  size,  product,  seasonal  activity,  sales  territory 
and  methods,  likewise  their  costs  and  overhead  ex- 
penses, were  so  entirely  apart  from  ours  as  to  make 
it  quite  impossible  for  me  to  accept  hours,  wages, 
and  shop  conditions  which  were  practical  for  them. 
I  simply  had  to  fight  a  long  strike  alone  and  to  a 
finish,  and  we  came  out  a  non-union  shop,  with  a 
sadder  and  wiser  lot  of  workmen;  for  their  unions 
could  get  them  out  of  one  job,  but  could  not  get  them 
back  or  into  another.  The  machine  did  not  "  func- 
tion perfectly." 

Take  another  illustration,  the  New  York  harbor 
strike  now  on  (April  10) .  It  grows  in  some  obscure 
way  out  of  trouble  between  the  United  Fruit  Com- 
pany and  the  coastwise  longshoremen :  first  taken  up 
by  the  Master  Mates  and  Pilots  Union,  then  by  the 
Marine  Engineers,  and  the  Harbor  Boatsmen.  The 
Erie  Railway  sold  some  tugs  it  no  longer  needed  to 
an  independent  towing  company  that  worked  over 
eight  hours  a  day,  and  the  unions  "  struck"  the  Erie 
Railroad  Ferry  Service,  and  then  the  other  great 
roads  serving  New  York,  on  the  ground  that  the 
Erie  sold  the  tugs  in  order  that  they  might  move 
the  United  Fruit  boats  after  hours.  The  thing  is 
too  confused  to  prove  much  of  anything,  except  the 
infernal  mischief  of  tying  all  those  unions  together, 
so  that  the  great  harbor  of  New  York,  half  a  dozen 
trunk  railroads,  and  several  hundred  thousand  peo- 
ple are  the  victims  of  a  controversy  with  which  they 
had  absolutely  nothing  to  do.  New  York  dispatches 
of  April  4  quote  Vice  President  Maher  of  the 
Marine  Workers,  the  leader  of  this  harbor  strike, 
as  announcing  plans  for  a  national  strike  of  six  mil- 
lion men,  to  head  off  this  move  of  the  Erie  Road 
against  the  eight-hour  day!  Can  this  be  called 
"perfect  functioning"  for  peace? 

[H5] 


LABOR    IN   POLITICS 

A  multitude  of  similar  instances  must  come  to  the 
memory  of  you,  gentlemen,  who  keep  abreast  of  the 
news.  It  stands  to  reason  that  every  difference  of 
every  concern  with  its  employees,  if  organized  by 
Mr.  Gompers,  is  tied  into  those  of  countless  other 
concerns  and  localities,  involving  ramifications  which 
no  man  can  be  clever  enough  to  foresee  or  innocent 
enough  to  escape;  yet  always  all  the  strings  lead 
away  back  into  one  focal  grip  —  that  of  the  tortuous 
master  of  the  A.  F.  L. 

An  amusing  little  sidelight  is  thrown  upon  the 
perfection  of  the  functioning  of  Mr.  Gompers' 
"  tried  and  tested  machinery  for  arbitration  and  con- 
ciliation," and  the  energy  with  which  it  grinds  out 
industrial  peace  (?),  by  the  following  Resolution, 
No.  6 1  (see  Report  for  1919,  page  461):  "Re- 
solved, that  this  Convention  of  the  A.  F.  L.  go  on 
record  to  do  all  in  its  power  to  adjust  this  strike 
of  seven  (7)  years'  duration,  for  the  benefit  of  the 
International  Union  of  Steam  and  Operating  En- 
gineers." Think  of  it — only  seven  years  on  strike 
in  the  Chicago  brickyards!  However,  "the  smoke 
flew  up  the  chimney  just  the  same,"  and  the  bricks 
came  out  of  the  brickyards  just  the  same,  all  during 
those  years ! 

Of  course  Mr.  Gompers  does  not  want  the  In- 
dustrial Conference  to  get  Capital  and  Labor  into 
the  horrid  habit  of  settling  their  difficulties  them- 
selves, shop  by  shop.  Of  course  that  would  be  disas- 
trous to  Organized  Labor.  Of  course  he  wants  our 
laws  to  establish  forever  this  childlike  and  blind 
proposition :  that  his  huge  centralized  strike  machine 
is  the  one  and  only  mill  to  grind  out  first  war,  then 
peace,  in  industry.  Does  he  not,  gentlemen  of  the 
press,  remind  you  of  that  innocent  Kaiser  who  a 
few  years  ago  made  some  delicious  jokes  to  the  effect 

[116] 


CENTRALIZED   ARBITRATION   FAILS 

that  he  —  mitt  Gott,  an  iron  will,  shining  armor,  a 
mailed  fist,  the  greatest  army  and  next  to  the  great- 
est navy  on  earth  —  dreamed  of  nothing  but  world 
peace  and  a  quiet  "place  in  the  sun"? 

To  do  Mr.  Gompers  justice,  however,  judging 
from  world-wide  experience,  we  may  well  agree  with 
him  in  expecting  little  or  nothing  from  the  Industrial 
Board  recommended  by  the  second  Industrial  Con- 
ference, or  from  the  Railroad  Labor  Board  set  up 
by  recent  act  of  Congress,  in  the  absence  of  lawful 
power  to  enforce  a  decision.  The  weakness  of  these 
great  centralized,  semipolitical,  semijudicial  tribu- 
nals for  meddling  with  highly  local  and  entirely  com- 
mercial questions  is  threefold  and  fundamental,  viz. : 

The  first  difficulty  is  that  there  are  very  few  com- 
mon underlying  conditions  upon  which  general  rules 
governing  particular  cases  can  be  based.  Nothing 
is  more  absolutely  local,  more  entirely  bounded  by 
special  conditions,  than  the  workman's  relation  to  his 
job.  Each  case  in  practice  must  be  a  law  unto  itself. 
Furthermore,  even  where  justice  is  evident,  if  the 
men  are  not  there,  where  the  job  is,  or  do  not  like 
it  for  any  or  no  reason  under  the  sun,  the  places  will 
not  be  filled,  nor  the  work  go  on;  and  unless  the  men 
break  their  contracts  in  quitting  work,  —  or  break 
some  law  yet  to  be  enacted  under  which  they  accept 
work  originally,  —  it  is  safe  to  say  that  no  American 
authority  will  ever  force  them  back  to  work.  That 
would  indeed  be  what  Gompers  calls  "  involuntary 
servitude."  In  a  free  country  the  law  may  say  "  thou 
shalt  wo/";  but  it  can  seldom  say  "thou  shalt."  If 
you,  gentlemen,  will  look  back  over  past  history  of 
the  labor  troubles,  great  or  small,  of  your  time,  you 
will  note -that  in  the  last  resort,  whether  with  or 
against  the  volition  of  the  great  labor  organizations, 
settlements  are  eventually  arrived  at  locally;  by  each 


local  management  with  its  own  men,  conformably 
to  local  conditions  and  factors  compelling  both  sides. 
Take,  for  instance,  the  great  steel  strike  of  last  fall ; 
which,  I  think,  has  never  been  "  called  off  "  by  the 
twenty-six  unions  involved.  It  has  died  a  natural 
death  long  ago,  "petering  out"  locally,  first  at  one 
plant  and  then  at  another,  as  man  by  man  the  strikers 
returned  to  work  or  were  replaced.  Or  consider  the 
recent  soft  coal  strike,  called  off  under  order  of  the 
courts,  but  here  and  there  kept  up  by  local  malcon- 
tents,—  in  Kansas,  for  instance,  —  local  conditions 
prolonging  or  ending  it. 

Or,  for  an  unimportant  but  most  significant  in- 
stance, consider  the  strike  of  1903  in  my  own  type- 
writer factory  in  Chicago,  already  cited.  Strikes 
were  called  simultaneously  in  a  lot  of  shops  besides 
our  own,  in  other  lines  of  manufacture,  but  all  for 
an  eight-hour  day  and  twenty-five  per  cent  increase 
in  wages. 

We  were  working  ten  hours  a  day  in  competition 
with  much  larger  factories  in  country  towns  in  New 
York,  Connecticut,  and  the  West  that  also  worked 
ten  hours  a  day.  Only  by  producing  the  maximum 
output  of  which  our  machinery  was  capable  in  a  ten- 
hour  day  could  we  meet  that  competition.  No  re- 
gional industrial  court,  if  called  on  to  consider  that 
strike,  could  have  ignored  the  fact  that  a  large  num- 
ber of  Chicago  shops  —  though  in  other  lines  —  that 
year  had  accepted  a  nine-hour  day.  Yet  we  were 
forced  to  stand  out  for  ten;  no  nine-hour  award 
would  have  been  practical  for  our  acceptance  unless 
it  compelled  our  distant  competitors  also  to  run  nine 
hours  instead  of  ten.  Our  men  finally  realized  that 
they  had  been  talked  into  striking  a  perfectly  fair 
job;  they  came  back,  most  of  them,  and  we  went 
on,  strictly  non-union,  thereafter,  governed  by  purely 

[118] 


CENTRALIZED   ARBITRATION    FAILS 

local  conditions.  The  Gompers  machine  did  not 
function. 

In  short,  nothing  really  settles  a  strike  at  any 
given  point  —  whether  part  of  a  larger  strike  or  not 
—  except  agreement  finally  reached  between  local 
management  and  local  labor  supply;  and  it  must  in- 
evitably be  based  upon  wages  and  conditions,  neces- 
sarily governed  by  locality,  which  the  management 
can  see  its  way  temporarily  or  permanently  to  offer, 
and  labor  can  equally  see  its  way  to  accept. 

What,  then,  is  the  sense  or  logic  of  endeavoring 
to  pry  apart  these  two  real  parties  to  the  bargain 
which  must  eventually  be  made,  and  insert  between 
them  a  tertium  quid  —  ponderous,  distant,  and  igno- 
rant of  or  disposed  to  resist  the  local  forces,  which 
must  ultimately  prevail?  The  only  reason  whatever 
for  so  unnecessary  and  senseless  a  procedure  is  that 
exactly  this  thing  has  become  familiar;  has  so  often 
been  done  by  the  Federation  of  Labor  and  the 
Brotherhoods  and  the  I.  W.  W.,  under  leaders 
whose  conspicuous  and  gainful  jobs  depend  on  keep- 
ing Capital  and  Labor  apart.  Our  politicians  reason 
that  wherever  Gompers  chooses  to  drive  his  great 
Federation  wedge  in  to  split  the  oak  of  industry 
wide  open,  Congress  must  patch  up  by  quickly  ap- 
plying turn-buckles,  or  steel  bands,  in  the  form  of 
governmental  pressure,  to  stop  the  cleavage  and  hold 
the  sides  together. 

But  why  not  simply  knock  out  the  wedge  and  for- 
bid driving  in  any  more;  —  forego  the  constriction 
of  restraining  bands,  and  let  the  cleft  trunk  close  and 
heal  naturally?  As  for  the  sound,  unhurt  trees  of 
the  forest,  why  not  let  them  grow  strong  and  great 
in  peace? 

The  second  difficulty  with  centralized  arbitration 
is  the  element  of  time.  Business  of  all  kinds,  espe- 
cially public  service,  is  necessarily  constructive,  not 

[119] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

deliberative.  Every  head  of  a  large  organization 
knows  by  repeated  experience  that  he  must  decide  — 
keep  the  wheels  turning  —  do  things.  It  is  inevit- 
able, in  prompt  decision,  that  he  will  sometimes 
blunder  and  do  the  wrong  thing.  If  so,  he  finds  it 
out,  and  takes  the  back  track  as  fast  as  possible. 
Such  errors  are  expected,  excusable,  part  of  the 
game;  but  to  delay,  doing  nothing,  is  inexcusable, 
fatal  to  constructive  work. 

The  necessary  delay  in  settlement  of  labor  dis- 
putes, especially  actual  strikes,  involved  in  submitting 
them  to  central  judicial  tribunals,  would  probably 
cause  avoiding  appeal  to  them  in  most  cases.  A 
court  can't  force  local  conditions  to  square  them- 
selves with  theoretic  general  desideranda.  Every 
day  that  a  plant  stops  output  is  nil,  overhead  cost 
is  wasted,  and  trade  is  lost;  every  day  the  laborer 
idles,  just  so  much  pay  is  gone  forever.  Speed  in 
coming  to  an  agreement  is  vital. 

No  better  proof  of  this  weakness  of  centralized 
arbitration  and  conciliation  could  be  asked  than  the 
present  "outlaw"  railroad  strike,  caused,  as  the 
strikers  say,  by  delay  of  the  President  in  appointing 
the  Labor  Board,  which  was  to  make  good  his  last 
year's  pledge  to  reduce  cost  of  living  or  raise  wages. 
The  statistics  of  36,757  strikes  and  1546  lockouts 
between  1881  and  1905,  compiled  by  Commissioner 
of  Labor  Carroll  D.  Wright,  show,  from  their  aver- 
age duration  of  strikes,  twenty-five  days,  and  lock- 
outs, eighty-five  days,  that  workingmen  get  down  to 
the  settling  point  far  sooner  than  employers  —  the 
majority  of  workmen  are  not  financed  for  idleness 
beyond  thirty  to  sixty  days.  Unless  the  central  in- 
dustrial tribunal  shall  function  faster  than  any  other 
judicial  tribunal  yet  devised  by  man,  both  employers 
and  employees  will  starve  out,  and  be  forced  to  settle 

[120] 


CENTRALIZED   ARBITRATION   FAILS 

directly  with  each  other  before  the  court  gets  around 
to  try  an  average  case;  after  that  it  has  no  power 
to  enforce  its  decree,  and  none  is  needed. 

These  objections  apply  with  peculiar  force  to  the 
Super-Labor  Board  of  the  League  of  Nations,  for 
it  is  impossible  to  conceive  of  its  acting  in  particular, 
even  in  important,  cases,  so  as  directly  to  help  the 
labor  involved.  Imagine,  for  instance,  trying  the 
Lawrence  textile  strike  of  1912,  or  the  present  "  out- 
law "  railroad  strike,  or  the  Boston  police  strike,  be- 
fore the  League  tribunal  at  Geneva,  Switzerland,  or 
even  before  a  regional  tribunal  here.  How  long 
would  the  workers  wait  for  its  decisions,  and  what 
international  military  power  would  compel  the  Law- 
rence mills,  or  the  City  of  Boston,  to  obey  its  tardy 
decrees  when  rendered?  I  am  probably  of  a  most 
"  pygmy  mind,"  but  I  cannot  for  the  life  of  me  see 
anything  real  in  that  Labor  Board  of  the  League  of 
Nations  but  a  lot  of  solemn,  pretentious,  highly  paid, 
exceedingly  soft,  and  absolutely  useless  jobs  for  ex- 
labor  leaders,  whose  pronouncements  will  have  about 
as  much  effect  on  the  daily  ebb  and  flow  of  American 
work  and  wages  as  our  radio  experts'  high-tension 
waves  out  in  Nebraska  recently  seemed  to  have  on 
the  currents  of  the  canals  of  Mars. 

The  third  difficulty  —  and  perhaps  the  most  de- 
cisive in  many  minds  —  is  that  Mr.  Gompers  him- 
self objects  to  any  governmental  method  of  settling 
labor  troubles;  unless  so  contrived  that  the  A.  F.  L. 
controls  the  settling,  which  brings  us  back  to  the 
precise  point  whence  we  started. 

Let  me  here  once  more  sound  the  note  of  decen- 
tralization, of  simplicity;  of  American  common 
sense,  if  there  is  any  longer  virtue  in  an  appeal  to 
that  former  characteristic.  When  I  hear  our  Cam- 
bridge sociologists  talk  about  the  rights  and  aspira- 

[121] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

tions  of  LABOR,  the  greed  and  autocracy  of  CAPI- 
TAL, and  the  duty  and  culpability  of  SOCIETY  in  the 
premises,  they  remind  me  of  runaway  balloons  filled 
with  buoyant  gas,  with  no  anchor  rope  to  tie  them 
to  the  solid  ground  of  fact;  mounting  higher  and 
higher  into  the  glittering  clouds  of  collectivity  and 
generality,  until  the  rarefied  atmosphere  no  longer 
can  hold  in  their  swelling  mentality,  and  they  burst. 
Some  president,  Wilson  or  Gompers,  or  both,  sup- 
plies the  gas  and  cuts  the  anchor  ropes;  for  those 
gentlemen,  quite  unlike  our  sociologists,  know  ex- 
actly what  they  want,  and  how  to  use  what  the 
French  call  ballons  d'essai. 

Never  mind  them;  it  is  the  average  voter  from 
whose  mind  we  should  clear  the  pernicious  habit  of 
thinking  in  imaginary  collectivities.  "  Capital "  and 
"Labor,"  for  instance,  are  mere  words,  like  "So- 
ciety," denoting  collectivities  that  do  not  exist  or 
act  as  such.  What  really  does  exist  and  is  called 
Capital  is  a  great  diversity  of  industries,  several 
hundred  of  them;  in  a  lot  of  different  places,  several 
thousand;  subdivided  into  some  8000  concerns  em- 
ploying more,  and  over  400,000  employing  less,  than 
250  hands,  hardly  any  two  of  which  are  exactly  alike 
in  anything  but  their  employment  of  Labor.  There 
are  miners,  manufacturers,  bankers,  merchants,  etc. 
—  limited  groups  that  sometimes  act  collectively  for 
limited  objects  in  a  limited  way,  but  never  act  col- 
lectively as  Capital.  Messrs.  Parry,  Van  Cleave, 
and  Kirby,  for  instance,  fifteen  years  ago,  tried  in 
vain  to  solidify  against  the  Federation  of  Labor 
even  so  small  a  number  as  the  then  3500  members 
of  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers,  out 
of  over  300,000  employers.  Wall  Street  never 
holds  together  on  anything.  There  really  is  no  such 
thing  as  a  Capitalist  Class,  no  class  consciousness 

[122] 


CENTRALIZED   ARBITRATION   FAILS 

or  concerted  action.  Selfishness,  individualism,  is 
the  foundation  of  Capitalism. 

There  is  no  such  collectivity  as  Society.  There 
are  Democrats,  Presbyterians,  Prohibitionists,  brick- 
layers, doctors,  etc.,  who  respectively  act  collectively 
once  in  a  while  as  such ;  but  when  do  they  act  collec- 
tively as  Society? 

As  for  Labor,  here  we  have  45  million  laborers, 
of,  say,  200  crafts  or  trades,  of  whom  4  or  5  mil- 
lions are  members  of  some  35,000  unions,  and  full 
40  millions  are  free  and  unorganized.  Wherein  do 
these  millions  act  collectively  as  Labor? 

When,  therefore,  the  President  solemnly  "  passes 
the  buck"  to  Congress  last  fall  as  follows:  "Surely 
there  must  be  some  method  of  bringing  together  in 
a  council  of  peace  and  amity  these  two  great  in- 
terests .  .  .  some  acceptable  tribunal  for  adjusting 
the  differences  between  Capital  and  Labor,"  one 
wonders  how  he  proposes  to  fetch  the  two  parties 
into  court.  Mr.  Gompers  will  not  let  his  big  unions 
come  in  for  fear  justice  would  be  done,  apparently. 
He  wants  no  peace  but  one  dictated  by  the  Federa- 
tion of  Labor.  As  to  all  the  rest,  my  little  type- 
writer factory  strike  shows  what  actually  happens. 

The  Federation  got  into  the  factory,  unionized  it, 
and  struck  for  an  eight-hour  day  and  twenty-five 
per  cent  advance  in  wages.  The  questions  put  to 
me  as  president  were  simple,  and  in  no  way  con- 
cerned with  the  "  sanction  of  society  "  for  an  eight- 
hour  day,  as  announced  by  the  President  twelve  years 
after;  nor  with  the  "  aspirations  of  labor,"  a  phrase 
not  then  invented.  They  did  have  a  little  to  do  with 
the  "  democratization  of  industry,"  though  not  then 
so  called;  for  shop  discipline  was  to  be  taken  away 
from  the  management  and  turned  over  to  a  com- 
mittee of  the  hands.  They  also  touched  the  "  rights 

[123] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

of  labor"  a  little,  as  we  were  to  discharge  all  men 
who  did  not  join  the  unions,  and  take  out  of  the 
pay  of  all  union  members  their  union  dues,  fines, 
etc.,  and  pay  them  over  to  the  union  treasury  on  the 
"  check-off  "  plan.  They  boiled  down  to  two :  Could 
the  company  pay  the  wages  and  work  the  hours 
asked,  and  successfully  meet  the  competition  of  other 
manufacturers?  Also,  could  the  company  satisfac- 
torily work  men  who  took  its  wages  but  not  its  or- 
ders, obeying  first  their  unions?  My  answer  to  both, 
dictated  by  circumstances  quite  beyond  union  con- 
trol or  our  own,  was  No.  The  question  then  came 
up  to  each  man  individually:  Could  he  get  a  better 
job,  or  any  job  at  all,  without  going  to  another  city 
for  it;  and  if  not,  was  our  job  good  enough  to  throw 
up  his  union  for  and  come  back  to?  Two  hundred 
men  answered  to  this  last  question,  Yes. 

Now  I  submit  to  you,  gentlemen,  that  all  the  Pres- 
idents of  the  United  States,  all  the  Arbitration 
Boards,  if  created,  all  the  sociologists  and  collectiv- 
ists  that  ever  plastered  themselves  over  society, 
could  not  aid  either  myself  or  the  men  concerned 
to  answer  those  simple  questions.  Local  conditions, 
which  no  one  knew  so  well  as  those  directly  involved, 
answered  them  beyond  dispute,  automatically. 

If,  then,  Gompers  and  the  big  unions  don't  want 
an  Arbitration  Board,  and  the  400,000  small  em- 
ployers and  the  40  million  non-union  workers  can't 
use  one,  why  create  it  at  all?  It  might  now  and 
then  settle  a  strike ;  but  there  is  no  need  of  a  Krupp 
gun  to  shoot  sparrows.  Are  there  not  enough  use- 
less bureaus  and  salaries  at  Washington  without 
asking  for  more? 

Collective  or  standardized  harmonization  of  the 
infinite  variety  of  differences  that  arise  between  so 
many  thousand  employees  and  million  workers  in  so 

[124] 


CENTRALIZED   ARBITRATION    FAILS 

many  hundreds  of  trades  and  places  is  a  rank  impos- 
sibility, beyond  human  wisdom  to  accomplish.  It 
was  never  thought  of  until  recently,  and  would  not  be 
thought  of  now  but  for  the  great  centralized  trades- 
unions,  whose  votes  the  politicians  fear  and  whose 
strikes  the  people  have  learned  to  dread.  If  there 
was  reasonable  likelihood  that  centralized  arbitra- 
tion would  either  suit  Gompers  or  preserve  indus- 
trial peace,  there  might  be  some  sense  in  creating  a 
second  huge  machinery  to  counterbalance  the  first. 
But  as  the  second  is  no  good,  and  the  first  is  a 
menace  to  the  nation,  why  not  simply  cut  them  both 
out,  and  go  back  to  first  principles  of  keeping  the 
peace  and  enforcing  the  law  along  the  picket  line, 
the  one  certain  cure  for  strike  fever? 

Collectivitis  is  a  mental  disease,  a  bad  habit  of 
thought,  that  makes  not  only  our  clergy  and  soci- 
ologists in  Cambridge,  New  York,  Wisconsin,  and 
elsewhere,  but  also  many  of  our  statesmen,  quite  in- 
capable of  thinking  except  emotionally;  and  in  terms 
of  "aspirations,"  "democratization,"  "problems," 
"interests,"  "councils,"  "tribunals,"  of  "Labor," 
"  Capital,"  and  "  Society."  I  note  here  in  Cam- 
bridge one  good  sign,  however,  —  that  the  "new 
order"  does  not  as  yet  revolutionize  private  life. 
The  "sanction  of  society"  has  not  yet  established 
the  eight-hour  day  for  housemaids;  nor  has  the 
democratization  of  industry  gone  so  far  that  the 
cook  may  invite  the  mistress  to  discuss  whether  cook- 
ing or  playing  the  piano  is  the  duty  of  the  hour. 
Nor  may  the  cook  even  refuse  to  cook,  refuse  to 
leave,  and  refuse  to  let  any  other  cook  take  her 
place,  —  on  the  score  of  her  aspirations,  —  at  least 
with  the  consent  of  her  "  autocratic  "  employer.  The 
lady  still  feels  that  if  the  cook  takes  her  wages,  she 
ought  also  to  take  her  orders.  Laus  Deo. 

[125] 


CHAPTER   XV 

LABOR    LEADERSHIP.      MR.    GOMPERS 

LET  us  give  that  interesting  and  important  personal- 
ity, Mr.  Gompers,  the  "once-over"  anyway.  He  is 
entitled  to  it,  for  the  free  use  made  of  his  name  so 
far;  and  he  comes  pretty  near  being  the  whole  labor- 
show.  Except  for  a  single  term  he  has  been  re- 
elected  president  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  for  thirty-nine  years,  I  believe;  and  before 
the  Federation  he  was  a  power  in  his  own  union,  the 
cigar  makers'.  Under  him  the  Federation  has  grown 
to  its  present  great  size.  One  ambitious  worker 
after  another  must  have  arisen  to  dispute  his  leader- 
ship; yet  with  one  exception  he  has  beaten  all  rivals 
and  scored  thirty-nine  annual  reelections.  An  ex- 
traordinary record  —  unparalleled,  as  far  as  I  know, 
in  the  history  of  democratic  institutions  of  any  mag- 
nitude! He  must  be  exceedingly  loyal  to  his  asso- 
ciates, and  to  the  great  organization  he  has  created. 
He  is  said  to  be  by  birth  an  English  Jew;  but  he 
ought  to  have  been  a  Prussian,  for  he  is  as  ruthless 
as  Bismarck.  Here  is  what  he  says  of  himself 
(Report,  page  106)  :  "I  want  more,  more,  more  for 
Labor.  I  think  I  have  tried,  and  am  trying  to  do 
my  share  ...  I  have  been  the  President  of  the 
A.  F.  L.  for  many,  many  years.  I  regard  that  posi- 
tion as  the  most  exalted  that  I  could  occupy  ...  I 
ask  that  the  trades-union  movement  be  given  its 
fullest  opportunity  for  growth  and  development,  so 
that  it  may  be  the  instrumentality  to  secure  better, 

[126] 


LABOR   LEADERS 

and  better,  and  better,  and  constantly  better  condi- 
tions, for  the  workers  of  our  country  ...  I  am  68 
years  of  age,  I  have  been  tried  and  seared  as  few 
men  have  .  .  .  somehow  or  other  I  believe  that 
there  are  yet  considerable  years  of  fight  left  in  me 
for  Labor.  .  .  .  The  only  thing  I  can  leave  to  my 
fellow  men  is  that  I  have  helped  to  bring  about  a 
labor  movement  in  our  country  that  is  better,  more 
comprehensive  and  more  united  than  in  any  other 
country  on  the  face  of  the  globe."  Elsewhere  he 
says  (Report,  page  474)  :  "when  we  have  in  mind 
the  respect  we  have  instilled  .  .  .  the  tremendous 
achievements  of  our  movement  in  bringing  light  into 
the  lives  of  the  toiling  masses  of  our  country,  when 
we  know  of  the  influence  we  have  exerted  even  with 
the  comparatively  small  number  yet  organized,  it  is 
the  harbinger  of  hope  that  as  time  goes  on,  if  we  are 
to  be  true  to  ...  the  fundamental  principles  and 
high  ideals  of  our  movement,  it  is  enough  to  inspire 
one  and  all  to  greater  activity  and  service.  It  is  a 
privilege  to  live,  contributing  so  much  of  service 
.  .  .  for  the  years  to  come  let  it  be  our  guiding 
hope  to  work  for  a  still  greater  organization,  .  .  . 
of  the  yet  unorganized,  the  skilled  and  unskilled  of 
whatever  color,  creed,  religion  .  .  ." 

These  words  sound  sincere.  I  heard  ex-Secretary 
Redfield  the  other  day  publicly  refer  to  Mr.  Gom- 
pers  as  an  "unselfish  and  useful  man";  and  so  say 
many  of  the  important  men  who  know  him  person- 
ally, as  I  do  not.  Furthermore,  he  is  said  to  be 
merely  comfortably  off;  not  rich,  as  he  might  easily 
be,  either  from  the  enormous  revenues  of  the  feder- 
ated unions,  or  from  use  of  his  great  organizing 
ability  in  private  business  for  his  own  benefit.  (The 
late  John  Mitchell,  for  instance,  died  recently  worth 
a  quarter  million  dollars;  which  shows  what  an  able 

[127] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

labor  leader  can  earn.  I  do  not  wish,  by  the  way, 
to  assume  that  there  was  "tainted  money"  in  Mr. 
Mitchell's  fortune;  concerning  which  I  know  noth- 
ing, except  that  the  newspapers  mentioned  it  when 
he  died.)  Mr.  Gompers  may  perhaps  wear  dia- 
monds and  ride  in  an  automobile  —  these  things  ap- 
pear to  be  merely  the  recognized  insignia  that  go 
with  labor  leadership,  just  as  pearls  and  motor  cars 
go  with  captaincy  of  industry;  yet  his  salary,  $10,000 
a  year,  —  recently  raised  from  $7500,  —  is  modest, 
considering  his  work.  He  seems  not  avaricious  of 
money;  perhaps  does  not  care  even  for  personal 
power  and  fame,  though  that  would  be  natural  and 
legitimate  if  he  did. 

The  activities  of  his  organization  are  colossal. 
The  Report  of  its  conventions  are  almost  state  docu- 
ments. The  work  of  its  committees,  especially  those 
on  reconstruction,  legislation,  and  education,  show 
a  far-reaching  intelligence  and  efficiency  that  decid- 
edly surpasses  that  shown  by  many  legislators  and 
educators  on  whom  they  keep  watch ;  for  their  own 
interest,  that  is. 

Were  their  aims  not  so  selfish,  their  work  so  sinis- 
ter in  its  bearing  on  morals,  economics,  and  politics, 
that  work  would  be  as  admirable  as  it  is  extraordi- 
nary. Evidently  there  is  ruling  mentality  of  high 
order  at  work,  which  must  belong  to,  or  be  found 
and  controlled  by,  Mr.  Gompers  himself. 

I  would  classify  him  as  an  enthusiast,  a  fanatic 
if  you  will,  devoted  to  "Labor,"  —  which  has  prob- 
ably become  to  him,  like  "  Kultur  "  to  the  Prussian, 
or  the  Empire  to  the  Japanese,  an  impersonal  and 
dominating  idea,  —  to  which  the  individual  working- 
man  belongs,  to  which  he  owes  blind  loyalty;  which 
can  do  no  wrong;  whose  welfare  outweighs  all  moral 
considerations. 

[128] 


LABOR   LEADERS 

Otherwise  I  cannot  understand  how  he  can  fight 
so  ruthlessly  for  monopoly  of  labor,  for  denial  of 
the  non-union  man's  right  to  work,  the  employer's 
right  to  hire;  for  combination  to  coerce,  the  right  to 
strike  and  starve  or  freeze  us  all  —  to  deny  the  baby 
its  bottle  of  milk  and  the  washerwoman  her  hod  of 
coal. 

Even  harder  is  it  to  understand  how  a  man  of  his 
mental  grasp,  if  he  is  unselfish  and  sincere,  as  his 
friends  declare,  can  fail  to  see  and  recognize  the 
criminal  blunder  (which  I  hope  you,  gentlemen  of 
the  press,  will  verify)  established  by  indisputable 
records,  namely:  that  union  practice  of  monopoly, 
coercion,  and  sloth  actually  and  necessarily  hurts 
rather  than  helps  his  own  constituents,  the  union 
laborers,  —  reacting  on  them  and  their  country  mor- 
ally and  materially,  benefiting  no  one  but  himself 
and  his  associates.  Nor  can  I  understand  how  a 
patriot  of  his  ability  and  experience,  if  sincere,  can 
shut  his  eyes  to  the  fact  that  his  entire  political 
propaganda  —  urging  the  use  of  the  "labor  vote" 
solely  for  the  laborers'  class  advantage;  attacking 
police  and  military  power,  if  used  to  keep  the  peace 
in  "  industrial  warfare  " ;  attacking  the  authority  of 
the  supreme  courts  to  keep  oifr  legislatures  within 
their  constitutional  powers  —  that  all  this  strikes  at 
the  very  roots  of  our  constitutional,  American,  re- 
publican form  of  government. 

Congressman  Blanton  is  not  so  uncertain  about 
Mr.  Gompers'  sincerity  as  I  am  —  when  I  read  what 
such  men  as  Secretary  Redfield,  and  the  distinguished 
members  of  the  National  Civic  Federation,  in  which 
Mr.  Gompers  sits  as  Vice-President,  who  know  him 
personally,  as  I  do  not,  have  to  say  of  him.  Here  is 
part  of  Mr.  Blanton's  summary  of  Mr.  Gompers' 
recent  unpatriotic  acts,  as  spread  upon  the  Congres- 

[129] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

sional  Record,  February  4,  1920.  Blanton  charges 
that  Gompers : 

Opposed  by  letter,  August  14,  1918,  the  Thomas 
"Work  or  Fight"  amendment  to  the  draft  law,  re- 
storing laborers  to  draft  classification  should  they 
"  strike "  war  work,  for  doing  which  they  were 
exempted. 

Permitted  the  calling  of  approximately  six  thou- 
sand strikes  during  our  eighteen  months  in  the  war, 
as  tallied  by  Department  of  Labor. 

Opposed  successfully  making  Government  De- 
partment clerks  work  eight  hours  instead  of  seven 
when  increasing  pay  $120;  threatening  a  "walkout" 
of  all  employees  in  the  middle  of  wartime. 

Aided  Railroad  Brotherhoods  to  force  repeated 
wage  raises  during  war  by  threats  of  strikes,  and 
in  1916  to  pass  the  Adamson  Law. 

Threatened  a  revolution  if  Congress  should  pass 
an  antistrike  provision  in  the  Railroad  Bill. 

Denounced  the  President  and  the  courts  for  grant- 
ing an  injunction  against  the  soft  coal  strikers  —  and 
threatened  revolution. 

Denounced  and  tried  to  defeat  Governor  Coolidge 
for  his  action  in  the  Boston  police  strike. 

Denounced  prohibition  and  threatened  revolution 
unless  laborers  get  their  beer  and  wine. 

Killed  the  antisedition  bill  asked  for  by  the  At- 
torney General  last  January,  aimed  at  anarchists, 
"  because  it  interfered  with  the  aspirations  of  Or- 
ganized Labor." 

The  Congressional  Record  contains  the  detailed 
proof  sustaining  these  charges,  —  January  29  and 
February  4,  1920,  —  which  is  too  long  to  quote  here. 
Mr.  Gompers  denounces  the  Congressman  who  put 
these  things  in  the  Record  as  "  blatant,  bleating, 
Blanton  " ;  but  the  record  stands  there  just  the  same. 

[130] 


LABOR   LEADERS 

Congressman  Blanton's  charge,  that  Organized 
Labor  called  6000  strikes  during  our  participation 
in  the  great  war,  calls  attention  to  Mr.  Gompers' 
repeated  references,  at  Laredo  and  elsewhere,  to  the 
patriotic  "  sacrifices  "  made  by  Organized  Labor  to 
win  the  war.  It  is  worth  while  to  glance  at  the 
record,  and  ask  what  it  shows  to  support  Mr.  Gom- 
pers' vociferous  claims. 

While  I  would  not  for  a  moment  question  the 
genuine  patriotism  of  the  American  laborer,  union 
or  non-union,  it  is  hard  to  perceive  wherein  Organ- 
ized Labor  made  any  sacrifice  that  should  entitle 
it  to  any  change  of  status  hereafter,  as  a  cash  re- 
ward of  virtue. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  Organized  Labor  is  largely 
skilled  labor,  and  was  deliberately  kept  at  home, 
far  from  the  perils  of  the  fighting  line,  by  the  Selec- 
tive Draft,  for  the  one  purpose  of  maintaining 
output  of  munitions  and  supplies.  Not  having  the 
statistics  at  hand  I  cannot  say  what  percentage  of 
union  labor,  as  compared  with  non-union,  was  called 
to  the  colors;  but  it  must  have  been  small.  Skilled 
labor  largely  remained  at  home,  working  for  the 
shortest  hours  and  the  longest  pay  checks  in  history. 
The  whole  effort  to  make  Congress  award  a  bonus 
to  veterans  of  actual  service  is  in  order  to  put  them 
on  an  equal  footing  financially  with  those  who  stayed 
safe  at  home,  coining  money. 

When,  therefore,  Mr.  Gompers  talks  of  Labor's 
sacrifices,  does  he  mean  to  claim  credit  for  calling 
only  6000  strikes  instead  of  perhaps  20,000 ;  or  for 
not  holding  up  the  taxpayers  of  his  country  for  still 
higher  wages  than  the  highest  ever  known?  Just 
where  does  the  measure  of  patriotism  come  in  that 
differentiates  the  4  million  organized  laborers  from 
the  44  million  unorganized,  listed  by  the  Selective 

[131] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

Draft  Boards?     Can  you  answer  this  conundrum, 
I  wonder? 

I  put  another  query  up  to  you:  Is  Mr.  Gompers 
a  demagogue;  or  an  honest  fanatic;  or  a  good  deal 
of  both?  What  is  your  opinion,  gentlemen? 


[132] 


CHAPTER   XVI 

THE    RAILWAY    BROTHERHOODS 

I  HAVE  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  wages 
of  the  locomotive  engineers  have  risen  proportion- 
ately far  less  than  non-union  wages  in  the  last  forty 
years,  despite  the  admitted  strength  of  their  union. 
The  same  is  true  of  the  firemen  and  trainmen.  It 
is  true  that  there  has  been  the  powerful  influence 
against  raise  of  wages  of  the  action  of  the  Interstate 
Commerce  Commission  in  forbidding  natural  and 
legitimate  advance  of  railway  service  rates  during 
the  past  twenty  years;  which  has  held  railway  in- 
come to  starvation  figures  and  nearly  wrecked  that 
enormous  and  vital  industry.  It  has  been  impossible 
for  the  railway  managements  to  pay  higher  wages 
without  higher  income  (in  fact  it  is  in  general  true 
that  a  losing  business  cannot  pay  good  wages) ;  and 
meanwhile,  as  the  railways  are  the  only  employers 
of  railway  labor,  the  unlucky  railway  employees  have 
had  to  go  without  their  proportionate  increase  of 
pay,  or  else  get  out  of  railway  employ  —  which  most 
of  them  are  too  old  or  too  timid  to  do. 

This  case  is  a  complete  and  very  broad  demon- 
stration of  the  fact  that  unions  cannot  control  wages; 
but  that  on  the  contrary  they  are  absolutely  governed 
— ' first,  by  ability  of  the  trade  in  question  to  pay; 
and  second,  by  local  supply  and  demand  for  the  labor 
in  question. 

It  is  one  more  proof  of  the  uselessness  of  great 
national  strike  machinery. 

[133] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

It  should  be  said,  in  justice  to  the  Big  Four 
Brotherhoods,  that  their  purpose  and  temper  are 
very  different  from  that  of  Mr.  Gompers'  Federa- 
tion; as  appears  both  from  their  past  record  and 
their  present  attitude  in  standing  by  the  railways 
against  the  so-called  "Outlaw"  strike  now  pending; 
and  also  from  their  Constitution.  The  Locomotive 
Engineers'  Preamble  says: 

"  The  aim  of  the  employer  and  the  employee  being  co- 
ordinate, the  aim  of  the  Organization  will  be  cooperation, 
and  the  cultivation  of  amicable  relations  .  .  .  and  to 
guarantee  the  fulfillment  of  every  contract  made  in  its  name." 

The  Constitution  of  the  Brotherhood  of  Railroad 
Trainmen  in  its  Preamble  says: 

"  Persuaded  that  it  is  for  the  interest  of  both  members  and 
their  employers  that  good  understanding  should  prevail,  the 
constant  endeavor  of  the  organization  shall  be  to  sustain 
mutual  confidence  and  harmonious  relations." 

When  we  contrast  the  spirit  of  the  foregoing  with 
that  of  the  Gompers'  Preamble,  asserting  struggle 
between  oppressor  and  oppressed,  it  seems  most  un- 
desirable that  the  Brotherhoods  should  now  regu- 
larly affiliate  with  the  Federation  of  Labor,  as  Mr. 
Gompers  announced  at  its  last  convention  they  were 
about  to  do.  Perhaps  their  recent  departure  in  ad- 
vocacy of  the  Plumb  Plan,  and  their  threat  of  a 
general  strike  in  support  of  it,  show  the  influence 
of  the  rapid  growth  of  the  Federation  of  late  years, 
and  conversion  to  the  Gompers  propaganda.  In  the 
writer's  guess  both  the  Brotherhoods  and  the  Federa- 
tion have,  for  the  moment  anyway,  touched  high- 
water  mark.  Just  as  the  disturbing  pull  of  the  moon 
can  never  lift  the  tides  past  the  sand  bars  of  the 
beach,  so  demagogy  can  never  hoist  Labor  over  the 

[134] 


THE   RAILWAY   BROTHERHOODS 

settled  barrier  of  human  necessity.  When  Labor 
comes  up  against  the  public  welfare,  the  latter  is  sure 
to  prevail. 

I  do  not  doubt  that  the  foregoing  formal  recogni- 
tion of  the  mutuality  of  interest  of  the  railways  and 
their  employees,  together  with  the  naturally  high- 
grade  character  and  large  mental  caliber  of  railway 
men,  due  to  the  largeness  of  their  daily  work,  has 
held  them  back,  perhaps  against  their  own  interest, 
in  serving  the  community  in  recent  years.  I  should 
like  to  give  them  credit  for  unselfishness. 

I  am  here  reminded  of  another  factor  that  always 
slows  down  the  raise  of  union  wages,  as  against 
non-union  wages.  If  a  non-union  shop  is  short  a 
few  men  it  can  go  out  and  quietly  bid  up  for  them 
until  it  gets  them,  without  necessarily  raising  wages 
of  all  men  on  the  pay  roll.  The  union  shop,  on  the 
contrary,  must  risk  a  general  raise  of  the  union  scale 
if  it  has  to  bid  up  for  a  few  men.  Many  employers 
prefer  to  pay  more  than  union  scale  to  non-union 
men,  to  keep  them  out  of  the  unions,  and  for  the 
sake  of  other  advantages  realized.  I  have  done  so 
myself.  The  same  is  done  quite  often  in  the  soft 
coal  regions.  But  I  wander.  It  is  generally  true 
for  obvious  reasons  that  it  is  easier  for  the  good 
individual  workman  to  get  a  raise  than  to  raise  a 
whole  union  scale. 


[i35l 


CHAPTER   XVII 

AUTOCRACY  OF  CAPITAL.     TYPEWRITER  AND 
BOSTON  SYMPHONY  ORCHESTRA  STRIKES 

IT  is  worth  while  in  passing  to  put  a  value  on  certain 
sounding  phrases  which  adorn  Mr.  Gompers'  ora- 
tory, and  are  often  echoed  by  widely  different  men 
and  women  among  us ;  for  instance,  the  "  Autocracy 
of  Employers." 

Judge  Gary  is  the  pet  "autocrat"  denounced  by 
all  denouncers.  I  have  already  cited  the  Gary  case 
at  some  length ;  let  me  —  "  ut  parva  magnis  "  —  also 
cite  for  further  illustration  my  own  typewriter  fac- 
tory strike  already  referred  to.  My  factory  was 
small,  myself  far  below  the  rank  of  an  autocrat,  the 
case  like  countless  thousands  in  the  minor  industries, 
and  no  prejudice  against  multimillions  should  cloud 
any  man's  consideration  of  it. 

The  concern  in  question,  the  Remington-Sholes 
Company,  was  making  a  typewriter  in  competition 
with  the  so-called  "Typewriter  Trust,"  which  had 
merged  the  five  or  six  leading  machines  in  one 
monopoly  when  formed.  It  was  fighting  that  trust, 
had  gone  into  a  large  and  open  labor  market,  —  Chi- 
cago,—  had  opened  a  well-equipped  and  most  com- 
fortable shop,  paid  highest  wages,  and  run  along  for 
seven  years  building  up  a  perfectly  harmonious  and 
contented  body  of  two  hundred  and  seventy  work- 
men. Its  superintendent  and  foreman  were  popular, 
and  not  one  dispute  had  ever  clouded  its  sky.  Its 
owners  believed  in  the  theory  that  a  well-paid  and 

[136] 


AUTOCRACY   OF   CAPITAL 

contented  force  of  men  is  more  than  worth  all  it 
costs,  and  they  acted  thereon. 

But  those  two  hundred  and  seventy  men  were 
worth  in  dues  to  the  local  trades-unions,  if  organ- 
ized, say,  $i  a  month  each,  or  $3240  per  annum; 
and  the  organizers  who  should  round  them  up  would 
get  for  doing  so  $2  each  as  commission,  or  $540  for 
a  few  days'  work.  So  in  1903,  a  year  of  special 
labor  unrest  in  Chicago,  about  two  hundred  of  them 
were  induced  to  unionize  —  joining  one  or  other  of 
six  local  unions,  according  to  their  respective  crafts. 
They  were  promised  by  the  organizers  the  eight- 
hour  day  —  the  factory  then  running  ten  hours;  a 
twenty-five  per  cent  raise  in  wages;  a  closed  "union 
shop";  shop  discipline  to  be  controlled  by  a  union 
committee ;  full  pay  for  time  lost  on  strike ;  the  right 
to  go  on  "  sympathetic  strike,"  etc.,  and  were  told 
that  in  future  no  non-union  man  would  be  permitted 
to  hold  a  job  in  any  shop  in  Chicago.  As  soon  as 
organized,  the  men  were  called  out  on  strike. 

As  heretofore  explained,  the  little  shop  was  com- 
peting with  great  ones  of  ten  times  its  capacity, 
located  in  Eastern  country  towns,  running  ten  hours 
a  day  and  favored  with  lower  wage  rates.  Its  plant 
and  force  were  balanced  to  full  ten-hour  a  day  run 
and  output,  at  highest  speed  of  automatic  machine 
tools;  it  was  barely  making  a  profit,  and  to  run  less 
than  ten  hours  meant  certain  loss,  and  ruin  in  a  year 
or  so.  Before  the  strike  was  called  I  invited  the 
unions  to  put  expert  accountants  on  the  books  and 
verify  that  fact,  given  as  ground  for  refusing  the 
union  demands.  The  Business  Agents  of  the  six 
unions  declined,  saying  that  our  books  would  be 
"doctored"  to  prove  my  words;  and  that  anyway 
the  unions  were  not  interested  in  our  profit  or  loss 
and  did  not  care  to  do  business  with  weak  concerns. 

[137] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

They  were  going  to  put  all  Chicago  factories  on 
an  eight-hour  basis  and  twenty-five  per  cent  increase 
of  wages  —  and  if  our  factory  could  not  live  on  that 
basis  in  Chicago,  it  could  get  out  of  Chicago  or  out 
of  business.  I  asked  them  then,  What  of  our  men 
whom  they  had  just  unionized:  were  they  to  lose 
their  jobs?  The  answer  was:  They  must  sacrifice 
themselves,  if  need  be,  for  the  "  cause  of  Labor." 
And  the  poor  fellows  did. 

At  the  end  of  eleven  weeks  three  quarters  of  them 
quit  their  unions  for  good  and  all  and  came  back 
wiser  and  poorer  men.  The  other  quarter  disap- 
peared, and  I  suppose  found  other  jobs.  The  men 
lost  $45,000  in  wages  and  we  lost  over  $20,000  in 
carrying  charges.  The  eight-hour  day  was  not  then 
generally  established,  though  many  Chicago  shops 
went  on  to  a  nine-hour  schedule  that  year.  I  do  not 
know  its  length  now. 

There  was  almost  no  violence  or  bad  blood  at  our 
shop,  though  there  was  elsewhere,  and  across  the 
river  the  Kellogg  Switchboard  Company  had  a  fierce 
and  bloody  battle  with  the  same  six  unions,  in  which 
even  girls  were  slugged,  machinery  was  wrecked,  har- 
ness cut,  and  vitriol  thrown  on  girls  and  horses.  We, 
however,  closely  imitated  the  Studebakers  of  Fort 
Wayne.  They  had  met  recent  organization  of  their 
large  force  by  quickly  shutting  down,  and  saying  to 
their  men  that,  having  worked  with  them  harmoni- 
ously for  many  years,  they  felt  they  could  not  get 
along  any  better  with  others.  They  would  there- 
fore not  attempt  to  run  or  fill  the  strikers'  places. 
If  the  latter  changed  their  minds  and  wanted  their 
old  jobs  back,  they  could  have  them  on  the  old  terms 
whenever  enough  men  reported  for  duty  to  start  the 
works  to  advantage.  In  the  Studebaker  case  the 
men  came  back  —  non-union  —  after  nine  weeks.  We 

[138] 


AUTOCRACY   OF   CAPITAL 

told  our  men  and  did  exactly  the  same  —  and  they 
found  out  that  the  unions  could  take  their  jobs  away, 
but  not  give  them  back,  in  eleven  weeks. 

By  the  way,  when  we  finally  started  up  we  had  to 
fill  some  seventy  vacant  places  and  so  advertised  for 
men.  Under  the  advice  of  a  detective  agency  that 
made  a  specialty  of  strikes,  we  ran  three  different 
"ads"  over  different  reply  initials  for  each  trade; 
for  instance,  "union  polishers,  closed  shop"  —  "non- 
union polishers,  non-union  shop"  —  and  "polishers, 
open  shop."  This  was  to  head  off  union  spies,  an- 
swering all  three  ways  —  as  some  twenty-five  actu- 
ally did  answer  and  were  of  course  ignored.  We 
received  over  1000  replies,  of  which  —  and  this  is 
the  interesting  circumstances  —  nearly  900  were  for 
the  non-union  shop !  Many  of  the  men  wrote 
strongly,  saying  they  wished  jobs  free  from  strikes, 
where  they  could  work  as  hard  and  make  as  much 
on  piece  work  or  overtime  as  they  pleased.  Of 
course  we  filled  up  the  shop  very  quickly  with  good 
men. 

I  have  given  this  little  story  at  some  length  be- 
cause it  is  a  very  pretty  and  typical  illustration  of 
three  things:  the  worked-up,  purely  artificial  variety 
of  "Labor  Unrest"  displayed;  the  utter  failure  of 
"autocracy,"  if  attempted,  on  our  part;  and  the 
still  more  ghastly  failure  of  "  democratization  of 
industry,"  in  a  bullheaded  attempt  to  force  the  im- 
possible without  investigation. 

Our  men  had  had  no  cause  of  complaint,  and 
when  they  came  back  after  throwing  overboard  their 
union,  they  said  so;  cursing  themselves  fdr  having 
been  fooled  with  promises  of  an  eight-hour  day  and 
a  twenty-five  per  cent  advance,  and  for  having  been 
frightened  or  being  driven  out  of  Chicago  unless 
they  joined  the  union. 

[139] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

My  own  autocracy  consisted  in  opening  an  attrac- 
tive shop  in  Chicago  and  offering  best  going  wages 
for  labor  in  a  lawful  and  useful  line  of  manufacture, 
under  best  sanitary  conditions,  in  competition  with 
many  hundred  other  employers.  I  could  compel  no 
man  to  accept  or  stay  in  my  employ;  as  was  manifest 
when  my  men  quit  incontinently  as  the  walking  dele- 
gate blew  his  whistle.  Prior  to  organization  every 
man  had  voluntarily  picked  our  job  from  many,  was 
glad  to  take  it  originally,  and  glad  to  return  to  it 
eventually.  Meantime,  autocrat  as  I  was,  I  had  to 
drop  all  thought  of  enforcing  "  wage  slavery,"  or  of 
continuing  our  peaceful  and  useful  trade  of  making 
typewriters.  I  simply  had  to  sit  down  and  wait  till 
our  "  wage-slaves  "  chose  to  return,  after  shopping 
around  Chicago  in  vain,  be  it  understood,  for  other 
or  better  jobs  —  which  perhaps  a  quarter  of  their 
number  actually  found,  and  never  came  back  at  all; 
poor  fettered  creatures. 

A  little  spot-light  may  here  be  thrown  on  trades- 
union1' -^m.  The  detective  agency  referred  to 
"  owned"  as  its  manager  said,  a  labor  leader  in 
each  union  sufficiently  high  in  office  to  furnish  to  the 
agency  the  unions'  regular  financial  reports  twice  a 
month,  also  detailed  reports  of  executive  meetings, 
so  as  to  inform  me  accurately  just  what  each  union 
was  doing  and  paying  out  in  the  various  pending 
strikes,  our  own  included.  The  detective  said  the 
leaders  were  a  bunch  of  grafters;  and  the  financial 
reports  looked  that  way.  For  instance,  pickets  were 
paid  for  doing  strike  duty  at  our  factory  for  weeks 
after  they  had  entirely  disappeared  from  the  streets, 
and  were  said  by  our  men  to  have  left  town.  //  so, 
who  got  their  pay?  Again,  a  leading  labor  lawyer, 
known  all  over  the  United  States  as  a  champion  of 
the  downtrodden  workingman,  charged  them  (our 

[140] 


AUTOCRACY   OF   CAPITAL 

unions)  many  thousand  dollars  for  services,  defend- 
ing sluggers,  etc.,  during  the  few  weeks  I  took  these 
reports;  just  to  the  few  unions  concerned  with  our 
factory.  Verily,  he  was  a  champion  of  the  poor 
—  for  a  consideration!  He  charged  them  in  our 
case  —  we  enjoined  violence,  and  brought  to  trial  a 
couple  of  sluggers  —  far  more  than  our  attorney 
charged  us  in  the  same  case;  which  we  won. 

This  experience  made  me  very  skeptical  of  the 
judicious  and  honest  expenditure  of  the  many  mil- 
lions paid  in  by  poor  men  to  the  union  treasuries; 
men  who  are  weak  in  the  knowledge  of  accounting, 
and  helpless  in  the  hands  of  their  officers  —  whether 
honest  or  grafters. 

One  more  story  of  the  kind  and  we  will  pass  to 
more  agreeable  reading:  of  the  strike  in  the  Boston 
Symphony  Orchestra  in  February,  1920. 

Boston's  first  citizen,  the  late  Major  Henry  Lee 
Higginson,  had  nearly  forty  years  before  founded 
and  supported  the  premier  orchestra  in  the  United 
States;  not  for  profit,  but  for  the  sake  of  very  per- 
fect musical  art.  There  was,  as  he  well  knew  there 
would  be,  no  money  in  it,  but  a  sure  annual  excess 
of  operating  cost  over  possible  box-office  receipts; 
just  as  to  run  a  university  costs  far  more  than  pos- 
sible receipts  for  tuition.  The  resulting  loss  Major 
Higginson  paid  for  thirty-seven  years,  until  an  as- 
sociation was  formed  to  take  the  load  off  his  shoul- 
ders. If  it  was  as  costly  as  other  orchestras  whose 
finances  I  have  known,  that  loss  must  have  averaged 
at  least  twenty-five  thousand  dollars  annually  for  all 
those  years. 

Nevertheless,  Major  Higginson  persisted  in  em- 
ploying the  best  musicians  only,  paying  the  highest 
salaries  and  giving  the  longest  engagement  known 
throughout  the  entire  world  of  orchestra  —  domestic 

[141] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

and  foreign.  His  men  were  the  aristocrats  and  plu- 
tocrats of  their  profession;  they  played  none  but  the 
best  music,  under  the  most  dignified  and  agreeable 
conditions,  and  enjoyed  the  professional  prestige  of 
the  first  institution  of  the  kind  in  the  world;  all  of 
this  at  the  expense  and  heavy  personal  loss  of  Major 
Higginson  and  some  other  lovers  of  good  art. 

But  these  musicians  were  not  faying  union  dues. 
The  local  branch  of  the  Musicians'  Union  affiliated 
with  the  A.  F.  L.  said  to  them:  "These  men  who 
pay  that  deficit  are  rich,  and  the  audience  that  pay 
for  tickets  are  rich;  they  are  lying  about  a  deficit 
anyway,  and  are  making  money.  Don't  believe  the 
bosh  they  are  talking  about  working  for  Art.  What 
you  want  is  cash.  Join  our  union  and  strike !  We 
will  hold  that  crowd  up  for  $1000  a  year  apiece 
additional  salary  for  you  boys  all  around.  Also  we 
will  take  the  discipline  and  rules  of  the  orchestra 
away  from  an  autocratic  conductor,  and  let  you  pass 
on  them  yourselves." 

Two  thirds  of  the  members  of  this  noble  orches- 
tra, this  unselfish  creation  of  a  generous  man,  are 
said  to  have  succumbed  to  the  bait  of  a  thousand- 
dollar  holdup  dangled  before  their  eyes.  They 
joined  the  union  and  promptly  struck  —  out! 

Very  properly,  the  trustees  decided  that  they  were 
conducting  an  art,  and  not  a  commercial  institution, 
under  unique  conditions  of  comfort,  consideration, 
and  compensation  of  the  musicians,  and  at  heavy 
cost  to  its  supporters ;  and  therefore  that  recognition 
of  the  union  and  dictation  by  it,  in  a  purely  selfish 
commercial  spirit,  was  incompatible  with  art  pur- 
pose. As  every  musician  who  had  struck  was  bound 
by  written  contract,  which  he  had  violated,  he  was 
consequently  discharged,  pay  to  cease  forthwith. 

The  men  so  discharged,  who  cannot  find  another 

[142] 


AUTOCRACY   OF   CAPITAL 

such  engagement  in  the  whole  world,  are  now  sadly 
wondering  whether  "democratization  of  industry" 
is  all  it  was  cracked  up  to  be.  Their  places  have  been 
acceptably  filled;  and  though  it  may  be  some  time 
before  it  recovers  its  fine  edge  of  perfect  ensemble 
and  blending,  the  great  orchestra,  after  a  very  few 
weeks  of  anxiety,  goes  on  its  triumphant  way. 

I  cite  this  instance  to  show  how  from  purely  mer- 
cenary motive  union  organizers  come  in,  stir  up 
causeless  discontent,  and  lightly  gamble  with  and 
wreck  the  profitable  and  friendly  relations  of  men 
whom  they  pretend  to  serve.  The  case  was  aggra- 
vated by  the  attempt  either  to  wreck  a  great  institu- 
tion, or  to  hold  up  those  who  already  handsomely 
support  it  at  heavy  loss,  for  still  heavier  loss.  The 
utter  stupidity  of  an  attempt  to  better  the  best  exist- 
ing job  of  its  kind  by  quitting  it,  the  contemptible 
selfishness  of  trying  to  rob  a  group  of  generous  men, 
are  so  super-characteristic  of  Organized  Labor  that 
it  is  worth  while  to  impale  them  here  as  the  en- 
tomologist pins  ugly  spiders,  let  us  say,  to  his 
specimen  board,  and  puts  them  under  glass  for  the 
students'  convenient  examination. 

Of  course  Major  Higginson  and  the  Trustees 
who  succeeded  him  were  denounced  as  autocrats  by 
some  of  our  conscientious  sociologists  because  they 
stood  for  good  art,  paid  for  it,  and  wanted  what 
they  paid  for,  quite  oblivious  of  the  charms  of 
"  democratization  of  industry." 


[i43l 


CHAPTER   XVIII 

"DEMOCRATIZATION  OF  INDUSTRY."    "RECOGNI- 
TION OF  THE  UNION."     "  THE  CLOSED  SHOP  " 

PRESIDENT  WILSON'S  Labor  message  to  Congress 
last  October  or  November  calls  upon  it  to  "bring 
about  a  genuine  democratization  of  industry,  based 
upon  the  full  recognition  of  the  right  of  those  who 
work,  in  whatever  rank,  to  participate  in  some  or- 
ganic way  in  every  decision  which  directly  affects 
their  welfare." 

I  suppose  no  language  of  President  Wilson  ever 
reveals  or  is  intended  to  reveal  an  exact  meaning, 
but  he  clearly  implies  that  the  "right"  referred  to, 
whatever  it  may  be,  is  not  now  fully  recognized,  pre- 
sumably by  employers.  Elsewhere  in  the  same  mes- 
sage he  says,  "  An  employee  whose  industrial  life  is 
hedged  about  by  hard  and  unjust  conditions,  which 
he  did  not  create  and  over  which  he  has  no  control, 
lacks  that  fine  spirit  of  enthusiasm  and  voluntary 
effort  which  are  the  necessary  ingredients  of  a  great 
producing  entity."  Here  again  he  implies  that  the 
American  employee  is  "hedged  about  by  hard  and 
unjust  conditions,"  etc.  There  are  some  two  thou- 
sand words  of  like  camouflage  in  that  message,  con- 
taining not  one  line  that  Congress  could  act  on, 
probably  meant  for  perusal  elsewhere. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  little  tales  of  the  preced- 
ing chapter,  of  the  typewriter  strike,  the  Gary  strike, 
of  every  one  of  the  seventy  thousand  strikes,  and 
the  thirty-four  thousand  unions  organized  by  Messrs. 

[144] 


DEMOCRATIZATION.    RECOGNITION 

Gompers  &  Company,  during  the  last  forty  years, 
give  the  direct  lie  to  the  President's  implications. 
Every  worker  concerned  in  all  that  colossal  record 
not  only  asserted  "the  right  to  participate,"  but 
actually  participated  in  some  organic  way  in  every 
decision  that  directly  affected  his  welfare.  That 
right  was  established,  and  recognized,  in  the  very  fact 
that  the  man  joined  the  union  and  struck.  He  and 
his  union  actually  made  every  decision  which  directly 
affected  their  welfare,  by  accepting  or  rejecting  the 
proposals  offered  by  whomsoever  it  might  concern. 
If  rejected,  there  was  an  end  of  them;  if  accepted, 
there  was  an  end  of  discussion;  if  modified,  there 
was  mutual  agreement.  In  every  case  there  was 
entire  recognition. 

If  the  President's  nebulous  verbiage  means,  as  he 
probably  meant  his  labor  friends  to  infer,  that  Con- 
gress shall  ordain  that  "  Organized  Labor "  shall 
have  the  right  not  only  to  accept  or  reject  proposals 
of  employment,  but  also  to  dictate  their  terms,  and 
compel  employers  to  offer  them  as  dictated,  for 
acceptance  or  rejection,  or  even  to  discuss  them,  he 
is  proposing  to  Congress  not  a  "  democratization  of 
industry,"  but  a  tyranny  of  Labor,  to  which  no  human 
power  can  force  employers  to  submit.  "  You  can 
lead  a  horse  to  water,  but  you  can't  make  him  drink." 

To  sum  up  the  situation:  if  "democratization  of 
industry"  means  merely  that  laborers  are  to  have 
a  say  as  to  employment  contracts,  whether  unionized 
or  not,  they  assuredly  have  an  absolutely  decisive 
say  now.  If  it  means  that  employers  are  to  have  no 
say  as  to  such  contracts,  and  that  Labor  unions  shall 
determine  them  for  both  sides,  then  Labor  must 
wade  into  politics  up  to  the  neck,  for  only  Govern- 
ment makes  such  contracts.  There  will  be  no  other 
employer. 

[145] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

If  the  President  merely  means  that  employers 
should  invite  the  frequent  and  friendly  conference  of 
employees,  by  their  representatives  or  direct,  with 
shop  managers,  as  is  becoming  more  and  more  the 
fashion  in  large  works,  or  should  stimulate  them  to 
active  interest  in  better  conditions  and  growing  pro- 
duction by  such  inducements  as  stock  purchases, 
bonuses,  profit  sharing,  and  the  like,  then  his  "  new 
relation  between  labor  and  capital "  is  but  a  very  old 
familiar  story,  demanding  no  Congressional  action 
whatsoever.  In  that  case,  however,  as  Mr.  Gompers 
and  his  associates  are  dead  set  against  every  such 
device  for  effecting  close  and  friendly  team  work 
between  employer  and  employee,  you,  gentlemen  of 
the  press,  may  size  up  "democratization  of  industry" 
as  just  "  sounding  brass  and  tinkling  cymbals  "  for 
the  1920  band  wagon,  and  spell  it  Democratization! 

The  slogan  "  democratize  industry,"  with  its  ob- 
verse "  down  with  autocracy,"  is  symptomatic  of 
"  collectivitis,"  started  by  Mr.  Gompers  and  his 
friends  to  attract  political  support  to  Organized 
Labor;  caught  at  by  President  Wilson  as  a  useful, 
sounding  phrase;  and  of  wondrous  appeal  to  sociolo- 
gists who  love  to  consider  humanity  in  the  mass,  and 
hate  to  bother  with  the  individual  human  being.  If 
it  means  anything,  —  to  come  down  to  a  concrete  case, 
as  I  really  must  do  in  order  to  think  concretely, 
though  with  apologies  to  all  collectivists  for  approach- 
ing the  actual  —  "democratization"  signifies  that 
the  United  States  Steel  Corporation,  for  instance, 
should  let  the  manufacturing  end,  at  least,  of  its 
business  be  run  by  a  sort  of  town  meeting  of  its 
23  8,000  employees;  or,  let  me  say,  to  make  the  propo- 
sition as  nearly  practical  as  possible,  that  operation 
of  each  of  the  corporation's  numerous  plants  should 
be  regulated  by  town  meeting  of  its  own  employees 

[146] 


DEMOCRATIZATION.    RECOGNITION 

(of  course  with  due  regard  to  the  feelings  of  em- 
ployees of  other  plants),  or  by  "representatives  of 
their  own  choosing,"  alias  the  A.  F.  L.  How  does 
the  proposition  strike  you,  gentlemen  of  the  press? 

Do  you  not  recognize  that,  as  centuries  of  ex- 
perience have  shown,  there  can  be  but  one  head, 
one  controlling  brain,  to  a  living  organism,  that  co- 
ordinates the  movements  of  its  hands,  feet,  mouth, 
wings,  beak,  claws,  so  that  they  work  with  and  not 
against  each  other?  Just  so  a  single  controlling  in- 
telligence is  necessary  to  coordinate  the  movements 
of  many  men  when  organized  for  a  common  pur- 
pose. Especially  is  this  true  of  laboring  men,  who 
have  to  take  work  from  others  because  they  have 
not  brains  to  lay  it  out  for  themselves.  The  whole 
science  of  modern  industry,  against  which  under  the 
pseudonym  of  Capital  Mr.  Gompers,  the  President, 
and  our  collectivists  are  for  various  reasons  arrayed, 
consists  in  getting  good  work  out  of  merely  average 
or  even  stupid  men.  More  explicitly,  efficient  organ- 
ization of  industry  means  gathering  together  enough 
average  workers  to  form  an  adequate  unit,  and  co- 
ordinating their  labor  under  a  single  mind;  which 
must  be  far  enough  above  average  to  be  capable  of 
devising  a  routine  which  the  average  man  can  keep 
up  to  with  good  total  results. 

The  essence  of  successful  routine  is  unity  of  intel- 
ligent control.  Even  if  workers  were  all  brainy 
enough  to  take  part  in  control  (when  they  are,  they 
generally  do  so  as  foremen,  superintendents,  and  not 
seldom  eventual  owners),  the  old  couplet  would  hold 
good: 

"  Many  men  of  many  minds ;  many  birds  of  many  kinds ; 
Many  fishes  in  the  sea;  many  men  that  don't  agree." 

On  the  other  hand,  if  they  are  not  brainy,  merely 
average,  we  do  not  need  to  speculate  on  what  might 

[147] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

be  voted  by  many  men  of  no  minds.  No  capitalist 
would  put  a  penny  into  their  employment  in  "  democ- 
ratized industry,"  and  the  contingency  would  never 
arise. 

I  have  studied  the  records  of  some  five  hundred 
profit-sharing  plans,  most  of  them  failures,  so  far. 
The  most  notable  instance  of  real  democratization  of 
industry  that  has  come  to  my  notice  is  the  establish- 
ment of  Godin,  of  Guise  in  France,  long  before  the 
great  war.  In  his  lifetime  Godin  had  arranged  a 
system  of  division  of  profits  remaining  after  paying 
all  manufacturing  costs,  including  the  wages  of  labor 
at  going  rates,  and  what  he  called  the  wages  (namely, 
interest  at  five  per  cent)  of  capital.  The  residue  of 
net  receipts  remaining,  after  deducting  certain  per- 
centages for  depreciation,  invention,  management, 
and  education,  were  divided  between  labor  and  capi- 
tal in  proportion  to  the  "wage"  of  both,  already 
paid  as  above.  The  share  accruing  to  labor  was  not 
paid  in  cash,  but  in  shares  in  the  concern  bought  at 
par  from  himself,  or  from  any  one  who  left  the  em- 
ployment of  the  concern.  In  this  way  the  whole  of 
the  shares  of  the  concern  gradually  passed  from 
Godin  and  family  into  the  ownership  of  the  actual 
employees,  and  it  became  a  true  democracy.  I  have 
not  heard  what  became  of  it  during  the  war.  It  was 
in  the  fought-over  district,  and  probably  was  looted 
by  the  Germans.  You  will  note  that  Godin  provided 
for  invention,  management,  and  education  at  the 
company's  expense. 

An  interesting  move  in  industrial  democracy  has 
been  made  by  one  of  the  great  rubber  companies  at 
Akron,  I  think  the  Goodyear,  which  has  over  eleven 
thousand  laborer  shareholders  and  maintains  a 
"university"  of  over  five  thousand  students  from 
the  company's  working  force.  I  have  not  the  details, 

[148] 


DEMOCRATIZATION.    RECOGNITION 

but  mention  it  here  as  the  real  kind  of  foundation 
upon  which  democratization  of  industry  can  safely 
be  built;  of  course  by  concerns  that  are  big  enough 
and  prosperous  enough  to  undertake  so  large  an 
outside  activity.  There  will  not  be  many  of  them, 
and  they  cannot  be  created  by  law. 

When  I  hear  my  Cambridge  sociologist  friends, 
who  never  employed  a  laboring  man  in  their  lives, 
talk  so  glibly  about  the  "new  order"  and  "democ- 
ratization" in  industry,  I  sigh  for  a  breath  of  that 
old-fashioned  virtue,  obnoxious  to  President  Wilson, 
called  common  sense;  which  might  be  defined  "  as  a 
decent  regard  to  the  experience  of  mankind,"  if  I 
may  paraphrase  the  Declaration  of  Independence. 

There  is  nothing  of  a  unew  order"  in  the  art  of 
managing  men  by  treating  them  as  human  beings; 
it  is  at  least  as  old  as  Socrates'  precepts  to  Xenophon 
on  the  qualifications  of  a  commander.  "  Knowing 
how  to  get  good  work  out  of  men  "  has  been  a  fa- 
miliar phrase,  and  a  prime  recommendation  for  an 
industrial  manager  for  several  generations  in  Amer- 
ican industry.  It  is  true  that  until  the  trades-unions 
developed  their  vast  machinery  for  creating  indus- 
trial "unrest"  there  was  no  occasion  for  developing 
counter  machinery,  formally  and  specifically  to  make 
head  against  labor  trouble  and  inefficiency.  There 
certainly  is  such  occasion  now,  but  that  is  no  reason 
why  "  society  "  should  lose  all  sense  of  proportion  in 
considering  it,  or  indeed  should  worry  over  it  at  all. 
It  can  with  perfect  safety  and  propriety  be  left  to 
the  parties  concerned  to  work  out,  in  conformity  with 
the  organic  law  that  governs  us  all,  and  with  common 
sense. 

A  laborer  is  usually  a  man  who  undertakes  to  do 
a  certain  thing  for  a  certain  other  man,  and  for  cer- 
tain pay,  because  he  lacks  the  mind,  the  will,  the 

[149] 


LABOR    IN   POLITICS 

thrift,  the  courage,  the  poise,  or  some  other  essen- 
tial gift,  physical  or  mental,  to  create  work  for  him- 
self. He  should  be  absolutely  free  under  the  law  to 
accept  or  refuse  the  work  and  pay;  but  if  he  accepts 
one  and  takes  the  other,  he  should  be  absolutely 
bound  under  the  law  to  do  his  task,  for  the  period 
of  his  agreement.  There  can  be  no  impairment  of 
the  obligation  of  contract,  under  our  Constitution. 
Whether  there  be  one  or  one  thousand  of  him,  there 
is  no  reason  in  law  or  morals  why  he  should  have  a 
vote  as  to  what  the  work  which  he  has  contracted 
to  do  should  be ;  or  why,  when,  or  where  it  should  be 
done,  or  who  should  do  it,  other  than  himself.  He 
has  had  his  vote,  and  cast  it  when  he  took  his  job.  If 
he  is  unhappy  in  it,  he  can  always  quit,  after  filling 
his  contract.  So  much  for  the  law  and  the  morals  of 
the  case. 

As  for  the  reason  and  common  sense  of  it,  the  fact 
that  there  are  many,  many  millions  of  laboring  men, 
and  that  they  always  were,  and  most  of  them  will 
always  remain,  laboring  men,  despite  the  brilliant  re- 
wards that  wait  upon  the  ability  to  manage,  ought  to 
convince  our  sociologists,  inexperienced  as  they  are 
in  practical  organization,  that  the  great  mass  of 
laborers  are  simply  incompetent  to  manage,  not  fit 
to  vote  on  the  complex  questions  which  daily  present 
themselves  for  immediate  reply,  in  modern  industry. 
All  the  rosy  ideals  of  intelligent  cooperation  of  an 
educated  and  interested  working  force  smash  head-on 
when  tested,  as  in  the  Youngstown  case  elsewhere 
cited,  into  the  average  mentality  of  the  average 
wageworker;  just  as,  and  ten  times  more  than,  the 
"initiative,  referendum  and  recall"  smash  head-on 
when  tried  out,  into  the  dullness  and  indifference  of 
the  average  voter.  The  same  amiable  type  of  mind 
that  dreams  of  "democratization"  probably  viewed 

[150] 


DEMOCRATIZATION.    RECOGNITION 

with  complacency  the  referendum  here  in  Massa- 
chusetts at  the  last  election,  on  the  "  initiative  and 
referendum"  itself;  perhaps  the  most  important 
referendum  ever  staged  anywhere,  as  it  established 
all  future  referenda  for  all  time  in  this  great  state. 
It  was  adopted,  but  by  a  minute  majority  of  the  vote 
of  perhaps  a  quarter  of  the  voters  who  voted  for 
the  candidates  for  Governor;  that  is,  by  so  insignifi- 
cant a  fraction  of  the  entire  Massachusetts  electorate 
as  to  make  the  whole  theory  of  the  measure  utterly 
ridiculous.  The  voters  evidently  did  not  care  "  a 
tinker"  about  it,  but  I  think  the  Hearst  papers  did. 
I  have  not  yet  heard  that  our  theorists  propose  to 
democratize  Harvard  University  and  the  public 
schools,  by  ordaining  that  the  students  and  school 
children  shall  elect  "  representatives  of  their  own 
choosing"  to  confer  with  the  overseers  and  faculty, 
or  the  school  boards,  as  to  who  shall  teach  them, 
what  they  shall  be  taught,  what  their  hours  and  terms 
shall  be,  who  shall  finance,  build,  and  organize  the 
great  educational  institutions  to  which  Dr.  Eliot  and 
Dr.  Lowell,  Horace  Mann  and  so  many  able  and  un- 
selfish men  have  given  their  lives.  But  the  time  is 
ripe  for  such  a  proposition.  Our  idealist  friends 
might  as  well  make  it,  and  would  never  have  a  better 
chance  to  put  it  through.  It  is  always  easier  to  throw 
away  the  taxpayer's  money  than  that  of  the  stock- 
holders of  a  soulless  corporation;  for  the  reason  that 
when  stockholders  see  that  the  law,  for  instance,  is 
going  to  make  ducks  and  drakes  of  their  ill-gotten 
gains,  they  hold  them  back,  and  will  no  longer  put 
them  at  the  mercy  of  the  law.  Witness  the  present 
unhappy  situation  of  the  railroads,  for  example.  If 
our  sociologists  really  wish  to  put  the  brakes  on 
production,  and  stop  the  making  and  investing  of 
wealth  in  America,  they  can  hardly  find  a  quicker 

[151] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

way  to  do  so  than  compulsory  "  democratization  of 
industry." 

For  the  hundredth  time  let  me  repeat,  that  entirely 
decentralized,  independent,  and  voluntary  action  by 
the  responsible  owners  and  managers  of  each  under- 
taking is  the  only  safe  and  wise  foundation  for  its 
success;  and  that  its  success  is  the  paramount  factor 
in  the  welfare  of  its  employees,  whether  it  leads 
toward  or  away  from  "  democratization." 

While  discussing  Organized  Labor's  catch  phrases, 
it  would  be  well  to  clarify  our  ideas  a  little  on  the 
meaning  of  two  of  them,  which  are  generally  mis- 
understood by  thousands  of  men  and  women  of  heart 
and  conscience,  especially  by  the  clergy,  to  wit:  "  Rec- 
ognition of  the  Union,"  and  the  "  Closed  Shop." 
The  union  leaders  sometimes  call  the  latter  the 
"Free  Shop,"  —  free  of  non-union  labor,  that  is. 

An  association  of  clergymen,  the  Inter-Church  In- 
dustrial Conference  (the  name  may  be  incorrect), 
whose  secretary  is  a  Dr.  Poling,  has  just  formulated 
a  report  on  industrial  relations  and  remedies  that 
suggests  at  first  the  utterance  of  an  official  of  an 
imaginary  clergyman's  union  affiliated  with  the  Fed- 
eration of  Labor.  Its  perfectly  innocent  acceptance 
of  the  slogans  and  economics  of  trades-unionism,  of 
the  villainy  and  greed  of  capital,  and  the  righteous- 
ness of  Organized  Labor,  saddens  a  man  who,  like 
myself,  is  a  descendant  of  a  long  line  of  clergymen, 
and  a  sincere  believer  in  them,  their  lives  and  their 
work  The  Parable  of  the  Unjust  Steward  says 
truly  enough  that  "  the  children  of  this  world  are 
in  their  generation  wiser  than  the  children  of  light." 
Fortunately  for  the  latter  and  for  all  of  us,  they  can 
and  do  depend  upon  the  conscience  and  the  constant 
material  support  of  the  very  men  whom  they  so 
fluently  condemn,  for  the  safe  existence  of  their 

[152] 


DEMOCRATIZATION.    RECOGNITION 

churches  and  their  noble  charities.  But  they  cer- 
tainly do  not  comprehend  the  practical  game  played 
by  "Labor.;1 

"  Recognition  of  the  Union,"  means  to  many  good 
Christians  something  like  good  manners,  or  human 
courtesy,  to  workingmen ;  and  refusal  to  "recognize" 
is  stigmatized  as  autocratic  hauteur,  as  contemptuous 
disregard  of  the  "  aspirations  of  labor."  It  is 
nothing  of  the  kind.  "Recognition"  of  organized 
labor  and  the  "  closed  shop "  are  identical,  and 
mean  that  the  employer  enters  regularly  into  con- 
tract with  the  unions  through  their  officials,  usually 
in  writing,  which  binds  the  former  to  employ  labor 
only  through  the  latter,  and  to  close  the  shop  to  the 
non-union  man.  No  matter  how  badly  a  non-union 
man  needs  work,  or  how  good  a  workman  he  is,  or 
how  much  the  employer  wants  to  hire  him,  he  can 
get  employment  in  that  shop  only  by  first  joining  the 
local  union  of  his  craft,  signing  its  constitution,  sub- 
mitting to  the  authority  of  its  officers,  and  most  im- 
portant of  all,  paying  the  initiation  fee  and  dues 
involved.  Then  only  a  union  card  is  issued  to  him, 
and  he  can  get  a  job  in  a  closed  shop. 

Many  thousands  of  laboring  men  prefer  their  in- 
dependence, and  refuse  to  be  held  up  for  union  dues. 
Many  hundreds  of  employers,  though  the  majority 
are  indifferent,  refuse  to  contract  for  the  closed  shop ; 
some  as  a  mere  matter  of  business  policy,  but  many 
more,  in  my  observation,  because  they  refuse  to  be- 
tray the  constitutional  right  of  every  man,  employer 
or  laborer,  to  hire  or  work  without  the  dictation  of 
any  other  man  or  group  of  men.  One  of  the  largest 
employers  in  Boston  lately  said  to  me,  that  he  would 
lose  every  dollar  he  had  invested,  and  if  necessary 
would  die  for  the  "  open  shop,"  as  a  true  American. 
He  employs  thousands  of  men  without  regard  to 

[153] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

union  or  non-union  membership.  My  own  feeling 
was  just  the  same  when  I  was  an  employer,  that  I 
would  never  be  party  to  taking  advantage  of  the 
necessity  of  a  workingman,  to  compel  him  to  pay 
tribute  to  a  union,  in  order  to  qualify  for  employ- 
ment in  my  shop.  I  have  shown  elsewhere  how  in 
the  course  of  a  strike  in  my  own  factory  we  dis- 
covered a  strong  preference  among  workers  in  Chi- 
cago for  the  strictly  non-union  shop.  The  sentiment 
for  liberty  prevailed. 

Nevertheless,  it  is  after  all  a  matter  of  business; 
if  an  employer  thinks  it  to  his  business  interest  to 
close  his  shop  to  non-union  labor,  or  to  union  labor, 
or  to  maintain  an  open  shop  to  both,  he  has  an 
absolute  right  to  do  so,  and  to  put  sentiment  aside. 
I  cannot  believe,  however,  that  any  intelligent  and 
conscientious  clergyman,  who  ought  by  virtue  of  his 
profession  to  put  sentiment  ahead  of  business  con- 
siderations, would,  if  he  understood  the  matter, 
favor  forcing  the  free  workman  against  his  will  to 
wear  the  collar  or  pay  the  tribute  decreed  for  him 
by  the  local  union.  Our  courts  of  highest  resort  have 
uniformly  restrained  the  attempt  to  monopolize 
labor  by  virtue  of  "collective  bargaining"  and  the 
"  closed  shop,"  as  an  invasion  of  constitutional  right. 
I  am  glad  to  accept  Judge  Gary's  maintenance  of  the 
open  shop  in  the  great  steel  industry,  as  dictated  by 
love  of  American  freedom  as  well  as  sound  business 
judgment.  I  would  urge  the  pulpit  not  ignorantly 
to  condemn  the  law  and  the  bench,  but  to  study  with 
open  mind  as  well  as  open  heart  the  intent  and  the 
result  of  bringing  all  industry  within  the  grasp  of  a 
labor  autocracy,  the  dream  of  Organized  Labor. 


[154] 


CHAPTER   XIX 

PROFIT   SHARING 

IN  passing  it  may  be  worth  while  to  say  a  word 
about  profit  sharing,  which  Gompers  and  Labor  care 
nothing  about,  —  in  fact  oppose,  —  but  which  seems 
to  have  great  fascination  for  my  conscientious  Cam- 
bridge friends  who  are  plagued  by  the  profits  of  the 
Rockefellers. 

There  are  three  fundamental  difficulties  in  carry- 
ing profits  into  compensation  of  Labor,  viz. : 

1.  Profits   are   properly   the  reward   of   skilled   manage- 
ment; or  of  capital  saved  and  risked,  i.e.,  of  past  thrift  and 
courage;  they  are  very  remotely  dependent  on  the   future 
exertions  of  this  or  that  laborer,  who  saves  and  risks  noth- 
ing,  and   whose  best  efforts  may  be  nullified   by  fault  of 
other  workmen  or  other  departments  in  production;  or  by 
general   trade  conditions   entirely  outside  of   his  vision   or 
control. 

2.  An  ordinary  profit  of  five  to  ten  per  cent  which  is 
considered  reasonable  for  capital  is  entirely  too  small  to  in- 
terest labor;  especially  coming  as  it  does,  but  once  or  twice 
a  year.     Labor  does  not  understand  profit  and  loss  accounts, 
or  want  to  wait  till  the  end  of  the  year.    What  it  can  under- 
stand, and  usually  goes  for,  is  a  definite  increase  of  wages, 
ten  to  twenty  per  cent,  payable  every  Saturday  night,  in  no 
way  dependent  upon  what  the  stockholder  gets. 

3.  There  are  frequently  no  profits  to  share,  nothing  but 
losses.     Under  the  common  law,  if  you  share  my  profits  you 
are  ipso  facto  bound  also  to  share  my  losses;  to  take  good 
money  out  of  your  pocket  to  pay  your  share  of  my  debts, 
if  I  cannot  pay  them.     Like  every  provision  of  the  common 

[155] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

law,  the  growth  of  many  ages  of  administration  of  justice, 
this  particular  provision  is  logically  and  morally  right;  but 
my  Cambridge  friends  seem  to  feel  that  labor  should  share 
only  profits,  not  losses ;  while  to  labor  leaders,  the  bare  idea 
of  standing  a  loss  would  be  what  is  called  a  "  scream."  One 
of  Mr.  Gompers'  fiercest  fights  is  against  holding  labor 
liable  for  anything  whatever  in  the  way  of  money,  except 
union  dues. 

Many  attempts  at  general  profit  sharing  have  been 
made  in  the  United  States  and  in  Europe.  About 
four  fifths  of  them  have  failed,  and  but  few  have 
been  even  fairly  successful.  Labor  is  pleased  when 
profits  and  shares  coming  to  itself  are  large ;  but  sus- 
picious and  discontented  if  small  or  lacking.  Shar- 
ing of  losses  by  labor  is  unknown. 

Add  to  the  foregoing  objections  Mr.  Gompers' 
vigorous  opposition,  and  there  remains  little  to  say 
in  favor  of  sharing  profits  with  labor  as  extra  com- 
pensation for  stimulating  good  work.  The  more 
direct  stimulus  of  piecework  pay,  premium,  or  bonus 
on  increased  production,  payable  weekly  —  also  op- 
posed by  Mr.  Gompers  —  is  far  better  and  more 
logical.  Each  man  then  benefits  by  his  own  good 
work,  even  though  some  other  man's  default  affects 
results  and  cuts  down  the  general  profit. 

Nothing  but  the  highest  praise  can  be  given  to  the 
United  States  Steel  Corporation's  plan  of  helping  its 
employees  to  buy  shares  of  the  company's  stock, 
guaranteeing  them  against  loss,  and  stimulating  them 
to  save  —  thus  making  themselves  capitalists,  and 
real  investors,  genuine  partners,  in  their  own  busi- 
ness. That  is  a  constructive  mode  of  securing  loyal 
and  enthusiastic  work  for  the  company;  and  the  pro- 
motion of  industrial  peace,  which  is  the  deadliest 
possible  "barrage"  against  the  rush  of  Mr.  Gom- 
pers' forces.  It  goes  without  saying  that  he  de- 

[156] 


PROFIT   SHARING 

nounces  it  in  the  most  unmeasured  way  as  capitalistic 
corruption  of  Labor. 

There  are  many  other  concerns  with  profit-sharing 
plans  in  operation,  of  which  one  can  say  nothing  but 
good.  One  general  observation  is,  however,  unde- 
niably true,  viz. :  that  no  panacea,  no  general  cure 
for  "  Labor  Unrest,"  can  be  prescribed  in  the  form 
of  profit  sharing.  Labor  itself  has  not  ordinarily  — 
no  matter  what  happens  in  sporadic  cases  —  shown 
the  ability  or  the  will  to  advise  or  cooperate  in  such 
long-drawn  and  deferred  undertakings,  while  as 
for  Capital,  each  enterprise  with  its  peculiar  condi- 
tions must  be  a  law  unto  its  owners,  how  to  stimulate 
and  compensate  its  people. 

That  remarkable  man,  Henry  Ford,  has  devised 
a  powerful  appeal  to  his  45,000  men,  which  he  calls 
bonus,  investment,  and  profit  sharing.  The  last  two 
words  seem  to  me  a  misnomer,  as  the  payment  to 
employees  called  profit  sharing  is  apparently  not  in 
any  way  connected  with  or  dependent  on  amount  of 
profit  realized  by  the  Ford  Motor  Company;  but  is 
a  flat,  additional  rate  per  hour  above  the  regular  pay 
rate,  given  to  men  with  the  latter  every  week,  pro- 
vided they  show  themselves  good  workmen,  good 
family  men,  and  good  citizens.  If  they  do  not  show 
themselves  such  after  six  months,  they  are  dropped 
altogether  from  the  company  pay  roll.  Besides  this 
so-called  "  profit  share  "  Mr.  Ford  pays  his  men-  a 
"  bonus  "  that  seems  to  run  from  three  to  ten  per  cent 
of  annual  wage,  payable  at  end  of  year;  and  he  helps 
them  to  buy  homes,  invest,  etc.  Taken  all  together, 
the  high  pay  and  the  strong  inducement  offered  by 
the  profit  and  bonus  plan  for  industry,  thrift,  and 
decency  since  1912  have  transformed  Mr.  Ford's 
force  within  a  very  few  years  from  a  most  extraor- 
dinarily unstable  and  floating  crowd  to  a  compara- 

[157] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

tively  fixed,  loyal,  happy,  and  exceedingly  efficient 
body  of  high-grade  workers. 

The  Ford  booklets  state  that  in  1913,  in  order 
to  maintain  an  average  force  of  13,624  men,  they 
hired  5 2, 445  men  and  50,448  quit  —  showing  a  labor 
"turnover"  of  370  per  cent;  a  ratio  quite  unheard 
of  elsewhere  among  my  acquaintance.  By  1915,  in 
order  to  maintain  an  average  force  of  18,028  men, 
they  hired  14,074  and  2921  quit;  reducing  labor 
turnover  to  1 6  per  cent.  By  1918,  however,  to  main- 
tain 31,911  they  hired  26,470  and  16,198  quit  — 
the  turnover  rising  again  to  44  per  cent;  which,  by 
the  way,  still  seemed  huge  to  me,  until  1  was  told 
recently  that  it  averages  100  per  cent  in  large  in- 
dustries nowadays. 

Returning  to  1912  (when  Mr.  Ford's  experiment 
in  the  "business  of  making  men"  as  a  primary 
and  automobiles  as  a  by-product  first  took  shape), 
two  things  are  to  be  noted :  first,  that  he  was  already 
as  he  has  been  ever  since,  the  most  extraordinary 
"profiteer"  in  the  history  of  business.  He  made 
and  sold  that  year,  only  ten  years  after  commencing 
business,  over  168,000  cars,  at  a  profit  said  to  be 
$100  each,  say  $17,000,000.  He  was  already  rich 
beyond  the  dreams  of  avarice  when  —  and  as  natu- 
rally happened,  not  till  then  —  his  attention  was  di- 
rected, as  he  frankly  says,  to  the  very  bad  business 
management  indicated  by  the  enormous  "  labor  turn- 
over "  noted  above.  As  one  of  the  ablest  business 
men  in  history,  he  put  his  mind  to  the  best  method 
of  handling  his  human  factor  in  production  as  skill- 
fully as  he  was  already  handling  his  raw-material  fac- 
tors. He  makes  no  claim  for  other  motive  than  that 
of  good  business :  and  that  motive  is  certainly  justi- 
fied by  results.  For  in  1913  his  13,000  men  made 
168,000  cars,  or  nearly  13  cars  per  man;  while  in 

[158] 


PROFIT   SHARING 

1917,  35,606  men  made  over  700,000  cars,  or  20 
cars  per  man.  What  the  more  recent  record  is  I  do 
not  know;  but  I  imagine  that  the  Ford  factories  have 
by  this  time  recovered  from  the  dislocation  of  tak- 
ing on  war  production  of  "  Eagles,"  etc.,  and  are 
swinging  along  to  yet  more  astonishing  results.  The 
last  published  report  of  profits  that  I  recall  showed 
over  sixty  million  dollars,  after  paying  the  extraor- 
dinary wages  noted  above.  In  furnishing  me  the 
data  utilized  above  (for  which  let  me  acknowledge 
gratefully  the  courtesy  of  Mr.  Squier  of  the  Ford 
"  Department  of  Education."),  they  remarked,  in  an- 
swer to  my  question  as  to  current  trouble,  if  any,  with 
union  labor  —  u  Unionism  has  not  been  an  issue  with 
us  at  any  time.  We  have  always  paid  at  least  the 
equal  of  the  union  rates,  and  in  most  cases  consider- 
ably better." 

Here  you  have  the  whole  psychology  —  as  our 
orators  love  to  call  it  —  of  labor  relations  in  a  nut- 
shell. Mr.  Ford  makes  his  job  so  profitable  and 
attractive  that  no  oratory  of  labor  demagogues  can 
induce  his  men  to  imitate  the  dog  in  Esop's  fable, 
that  dropped  the  bone  out  of  his  mouth  while  snap- 
ping at  its  double,  reflected  in  the  water  beneath 
him. 

The  Steel  Corporation  is  doing  much  the  same, 
perhaps  not  quite  as  lavishly,  as  its  profits  are  not 
so  lavish :  and  so  are  other  great  employers  all  over 
the  country.  Perhaps  the  best  job  that  Organized 
Labor  has  done —  though  not  at  all  in  the  way  it 
intended,  that  now  it  bitterly  opposes  —  is  forcing 
the  captains  of  industry  to  put  their  minds  to 
"making  men"  out  of  human  beings,  as  well  as 
"  mere  commodities  of  commerce "  out  of  their 
labor.  It  is  evident  that  Mr.  Henry  Ford  has  be- 
come perhaps  more  interested  in  the  former  than  in 

[159] 


LABOR   IN    POLITICS 

the  latter;  and  it  must  indeed  be  a  genuine  delight 
to  him  to  make  his  own  success  the  solid  and 
enduring  foundation  on  which  thousands  of  live 
Americans  can  build  their  own  happy  lives,  and  the 
inspiration  of  their  self-development.  May  he  have 
better  luck  in  converting  them  than  he  did  with 
the  Kaiser;  and  may  he  get  more  generous  verdict 
from  the  press  generally  than  from  the  Chicago 
Tribune.  There  is  certainly  nothing  small  about  his 
conceptions,  whether  wise  or  otherwise. 

In  spite  of  his  enormous  wealth  and  success  there 
seem  to  be  few  who  grudge  Mr.  Ford  his  prosperity. 
Let  us  hope  there  are  no  Bolshevists  among  his  fifty 
thousand  men  to  take  his  wages,  but  meantime 
plan  to  apply  to  his  great  creations,  soon  or  late, 
their  creed  of  "Rob  the  robbers;  steal  from  those 
who  stole." 

Before  leaving  this  matter,  however,  let  me  once 
more  call  your  attention,  gentlemen  of  the  press,  to 
the  fact  that  for  such  pay  and  such  help  as  the  Ford 
Company,  the  Steel  Corporation,  and  other  great 
employers  here  and  abroad,  are  successfully  giving 
their  employees,  the  one  essential  prerequisite  is  that 
the  concerns  themselves  must  be  great,  and  must 
make  much  money.  "Profiteering"  —  so  called  — 
is  the  foundation  of  "Social  Justice"  ;  if  by  the  latter 
phrase  we  mean,  as  we  ought  to  mean,  the  largest 
fair  reward  of  all  men,  even  the  humblest,  weak- 
est, and  stupidest,  proportionate  to  their  contribu- 
tion to  the  common  prosperity.  If  and  when  the 
Ford  Motor  Co.  and  United  States  Steel  Corp'n 
become  unprofitable  —  if  that  time  ever  comes  — 
their  employees  will  surely  suffer  with  their  owners ! 
How,  for  instance,  would  the  119,347  corporations 
out  of  35 1 ,426  that  reported  to  the  income  tax  officers 
a  deficit  for  1917,  share  profits  with  their  men?  And 

[160] 


PROFIT   SHARING 

what  would  our  sociologists  consider  Social  Justice  to 
the  latter  to  require  in  the  way  of  wages?  I  pause 
for  their  reply  1 

Let  me  also  warn  you,  meantime,  against  at- 
tempting by  Wilsonian  democratization,  or  Gom- 
persian  centralization  of  control,  or  by  any  other 
interference  with  industrial  freedom,  to  compel  all 
employers  to  follow  Henry  Ford  or  Lord  Lever- 
hulme,  or  any  other  able  man  who  is  applying  good 
engineering  to  the  labor  problem.  There  are  very 
few  great  employers  —  very  few  "profiteers,"  in 
American  industry.  Out  of  some  450,000  indus- 
trial concerns  only  two  per  cent,  or  thereabouts,  some 
10,000  to  12,000,  employ  over  250  men.  The  large 
employers,  especially  if  they  "profiteer,"  can  and 
will  more  and  more  take  care  of  their  men  and 
themselves,  as  Ford  is  doing.  But  I  urge  you  to 
deprecate  handing  over  the  little  fellows,  bound  hand 
and  foot  by  legislation,  to  the  tender  mercies  of  Or- 
ganized Labor.  Collectively,  they  employ  the  great 
mass  of  our  laboring  population;  yet  individually 
they  could  never  cope  with  such  a  labor  autocracy 
as  Mr.  Gompers  has  built  up  and  proposes  by  legal- 
ized monopoly  and  coercion  indefinitely  to  enlarge. 
Give  them  their  chance,  free  operation  of  the  law  of 
supply  and  demand,  a  fair  field  and  no  favor;  if  you 
wish  them  to  prosper  and  pay  their  labor,  the  bulk 
of  all  our  labor,  regularly  and  well.  I  am  speaking 
not  for  them  so  much  as  for  the  whole  community; 
for  America. 

Decentralization,  and  limitation  of  trades-union- 
ism to  the  shop  where  the  men  are  employed,  would 
free  the  small  employer  from  the  labor  troubles  of 
all  other  concerns;  and  yet  would  leave  his  own  men 
free  to  protect  their  own  local  interests  as  against 
him  by  organizing,  striking,  etc.,  as  at  present.  At 

[161] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

the  same  time,  the  removal  of  the  constant  tempta- 
tion to  show  power  which  is  inseparable  from  all 
irresponsible  autocracies  —  as  is  abundantly  proved 
by  the  Carroll  Wright  Report  —  would  probably  re- 
duce the  90  per  cent  rates  of  strikes  called  by  Or- 
ganized Labor  to,  say,  10  per  cent;  which,  with  the 
10  per  cent  called  by  unorganized  labor,  would  cut 
down  the  grand  total  of  all  strikes  to,  say,  20  per 
cent,  or  one  fifth  of  the  ratio  recorded  by  Mr. 
Wright. 

Decentralization  would  practically  eliminate  labor 
trouble  as  a  serious  factor  against  production.  Judg- 
ing from  my  personal  experience  as  a  small  em- 
ployer, however,  the  general  introduction  of  strike 
insurance,  and  adoption  of  time  contracts  guaran- 
teed by  forfeitable  accumulations,  would  serve  every 
purpose;  even  without  legislation  to  decentralize 
labor  control. 

In  connection  with  or  in  commentary  on  Henry 
Ford's  profit-sharing  and  bonus  plan,  let  me  cite  also 
the  experience  of  another  motor  company,  also  of 
Detroit,  a  near  neighbor  of  the  Ford  Company,  and 
maker  of  a  low-priced  car  perhaps  the  nearest  com- 
petitor in  price  and  grade  to  the  Ford  car.  The 
concern  has  never  had  the  huge  financial  success  of 
the  Ford,  though  making  and  selling  many  cars.  The 
management  write  me  as  follows:  "We  do  not  no- 
tice any  appreciable  effect  on  our  labor  in  Detroit 
on  account  of  the  Ford  Company's  high  wage  and 
profit-sharing  policy.  When  we  get  down  to  actual 
figures  we  are  paying  equivalent  wages,  and  there 
appears  to  be  no  influence  from  the  Ford  policy.  It 
actually  yields  their  men  no  more  than  the  amount 
realized  by  our  men  of  like  classification.  .  .  .  We 
should  say  that  the  wages  we  are  paying  are  the  re- 
sult of  competition  with  industrial  Detroit  gener- 

[162] 


PROFIT   SHARING 

ally  rather  than  with  Ford.  To  some  extent  Ford 
has  first  pick  of  labor,  but  this  is  rather  on  account 
of  a  little  greater  continuity  of  employment.  We  do 
not  believe  Ford's  wages  give  any  actual  advantage 
in  output  —  to  be  attributed  more  to  standard- 
ized repetitive  operations  in  great  number,  continu- 
ing indefinitely.  Fords  are  no  more  free  from 
strikes  than  we  are,  and  so  far  as  we  can  find  out 
there  is  no  discontent  among  our  men  on  account  of 
Ford  policies,  which  are  upheld  by  the  press  as  ideal 
conditions." 

Well,  as  all  through  this  investigation,  doctors 
disagree.  There  is  evidently  no  hard  and  fast  rule 
for  all  concerns.  This  company's  owners  have  never 
had  a  dividend;  there  would  be  no  earthly  "Social 
Justice"  in  asking  them  to  parallel  Henry  Ford's 
treatment  of  his  men;  yet  they  have  to  do  just  as  well 
by  them,  apparently.  Great  is  the  law  of  supply  and 
demand  for  the  workingman  in  Detroit;  and  every- 
where else. 

NOTE.  As  this  book  goes  to  press,  an  important  profit-shar- 
ing plan,  with  distribution  of  stock  among  employees,  is  an- 
nounced by  the  great  International  Harvester  Company  — 
the  "  Harvester  Trust."  Its  details  are  lacking,  but  it 
seems  to  promise  division  of  profits  in  excess  of  7  per  cent  on 
Capital  between  the  latter  and  labor,  in  the  ratio  of  40  per 
cent  to  capital  and  60  per  cent  to  labor.  The  plan  appar- 
ently "  democratizes "  the  industry  only  to  the  extent  that 
labor-shares  are  clothed  with  voting  power  and  representation 
in  the  directorate.  I  imagine  that  the  control  of  the  business 
and  policy  of  the  company  will  remain  —  and  as  it  ought  to 
remain  for  the  interest  of  all  concerned  —  with  the  investor- 
shares. 


[163] 


CHAPTER   XX 

GOMPERS   VS.    LENINE   AND   DEBS 

AN  officer  of  the  National  Civic  Federation  (of 
which  the  vice  presidency  has  been  a  masterpiece  of 
camouflage  by  Mr.  Gompers)  sent  me  not  long  since 
a  clipping  from  the  New  York  Times  of  Novem- 
ber 4,  quoting  Lieutenant  Kliefoth,  Assistant  United 
States  Military  Attache  in  Russia,  as  saying  that  the 
Bolsheviki  are  bitter  foes  of  legitimate  trade-unions, 
and  that  if  the  Soviet  form  of  government  were  in- 
troduced in  the  United  States  the  first  labor  leader 
to  be  killed  would  be  Samuel  Gompers. 

Lieutenant  Kliefoth  may  well  be  quite  right.  Mr. 
Gompers  certainly  has  thrown  his  great  influence 
among  workingmen  directly  against  Bolshevism, 
Anarchy,  and  State  Socialism,  everywhere  and  al- 
ways. He  may  well  be  most  obnoxious  to  all  three 
elements.  I  cannot  see,  however,  that  his  hostility 
arises  from  the  fact  that  they  all  propose  to  "  steal 
from  those  who  stole,"  or  plunder  the  rich;  but  exists 
because  they  would  establish  autocracy  not  of  Labor, 
but  of  the  proletariat.  His  own  program  differs 
from  theirs  only  in  degree,  not  in  kind  or  principle. 
The  Anarchist  would  individually  murder  and  plun- 
der brains  —  that  is,  the  rich  —  and  take  his  chances 
on  what  might  come  after;  the  Bolshevist  or  Prole- 
tariat, alias  the  leaders  in  power,  would  collec- 
tively rob  and  murder  brains,  and  take  the  chances 
after;  the  State  Socialist  would  expropriate  (he 
would  not  say  rob)  riches,  and  commandeer  brains, 

[164] 


GOMPERS  vs.   LENINE 

merely  abolishing  profits,  and  take  future  chances. 
Mr.  Gompers  would  leave  riches  to  the  ownership 
and  care  of  brains  and  let  Labor  "  swipe "  all  the 
profits.  Either  way,  poor  brains,  that  creates  all  the 
riches  and  directs  all  the  useful  employment  thereof, 
is  "  the  goat."  It  makes  no  difference  to  the  owner 
whether  Lenine  and  Trotsky,  Haywood  or  Debs, 
takes  all  their  capital;  or  Gompers  takes  all  their 
profits;  either  way  it  is  a  case  of  Love's  Labor  Lost. 

On  the  other  hand  it  makes  a  lot  of  difference  to 
Mr.  Gompers  whether  those  other  fellows  take  all 
the  capital  and  abolish  all  the  profits;  or  instead 
the  burden  of  capital  is  left  where  it  lies,  while  his 
own  Federation  and  Brotherhoods  absorb  and  squan- 
der all  profits  themselves.  The  question  with  him 
is  not  so  much  whether  capital  or  profits  shall  be 
stolen,  as  it  is  how  best  to  do  the  stealing  and  who 
shall  get  the  stolen  goods. 

It  is  perfectly  clear  that  Anarchy  and  Organization 
of  Labor  —  or  of  anything  else  —  cannot  coexist. 
One  or  other  must  disappear.  For  it  is  evident 
that  Messrs.  Lenine  and  Gompers  cannot  both  dic- 
tate the  lives  and  industry  of  the  same  workers;  in 
one  case  as  Soviet  constituents  and  the  other  as 
organized  laborers.  One  or  other  must  go.  Like- 
wise, in  a  Socialistic  state,  where  the  state  is  sole 
owner  and  employer,  the  Gompers'  Federation  could 
not  fight  the  state,  being  a  small  minority,  but  must 
inevitably  be  swallowed  up  in  the  state. 

As  Mr.  Gompers  is,  and  has  reason  to  be,  per- 
fectly satisfied  with  his  present  job  as  President  of 
the  A.  F.  L.,  what  could  or  ought  he  to  do  but  fight 
every  suggestion  of  Anarchism  or  Bolshevism  or 
Socialism?  Do  not,  however,  gentlemen  of  the 
press,  attribute  his  opposition  to  these  attacks  on  our 
form  of  government  to  any  especial  reverence  for 

[165] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

American  Constitutional  guarantees  of  liberty  or 
property  right.  He  has  never  evidenced  any  such 
feeling.  That  perfectly  honest,  thrifty,  and  pros- 
perous citizens  should  be  so  naive  as  to  rely  on  him 
for  protection  against  spoliation  of  what  they  have 
gathered,  reminds  one  of  the  story  of  Little  Red 
Riding  Hood  and  her  excellent  grandmother  —  the 
wolf. 

Mr.  Gompers  is  widely  proclaimed  in  the  press, 
and  indeed  proclaims  himself,  as  the  great  conserva- 
tive force  in  labor  politics ;  as  against  the  red  radicals 
who  would  control  it.  Well,  he  is  certainly  conserva- 
tive as  against  them;  but  of  his  own  power  and  the 
personal  control  of  his  great  organization,  merely; 
neither  of  which  he  has  the  least  intention  to  hand 
over  to  anybody.  When  it  comes  to  conservation 
of  anything  else  —  for  instance,  of  the  rights  either 
of  the  non-union  man,  the  capitalist,  or  the  public  — 
he  ignores  or  denies  them  as  contemptuously  as 
Lenine  or  Trotzky,  Haywood  or  Debs.  His  latest 
utterance  is  a  "gem  of  purest  ray  serene"  —  "The 
workers  will  not  sacrifice  human  progress  for  an 
abstraction  which  is  called  the  public  welfare" 
Even  Karl  Marx  never  rose  to  such  a  pinnacle  of 
"  abstraction  I  "  (The  italics  above  are  mine.) 


[166] 


CHAPTER   XXI 

DEMAGOGY   AND   BUREAUCRACY.      LEAGUE 
OF   NATIONS 

MY  Cambridge  idealist  friends  have  seized  with 
avidity  upon  President  Wilson's  carefully  vague 
catch  phrases,  "The  new  order,"  "A  new  relation- 
ship between  Capital  and  Labor,"  etc.;  also  on 
the  proposition  that  business  should  be  done  for 
"service"  and  not  for  "profit"  —  voiced  I  think  by 
the  President,  but  perhaps  by  some  other  idealist. 
In  his  labor  message  to  Congress  he  further  says, 
"  Return  to  the  old  standards  of  wage  and  industry 
in  employment  is  unthinkable";  and  "To  analyze 
the  particulars  in  the  demands  of  labor,  is  to  admit 
the  justice  of  their  complaint,  in  many  matters  that 
lie  at  their  base.  The  workman  demands  an  ade- 
quate wage,  sufficient  to  permit  him  to  live  in  com- 
fort, unhampered  by  the  fear  of  poverty  and  want 
in  his  old  age."  He  omits,  however,  to  note  that  the 
workman  usually  gets  his  demand. 

Pygmy  minds  like  my  own  search  in  vain  through 
the  presidential  utterances  to  find  out  just  what  "  The 
new  order"  and  the  "new  relationship  between 
Capital  and  Labor"  are  to  be;  and  we  ask  too  just 
why  return  to  the  old  standards  of  wage  and  industry 
in  employment  is  "unthinkable."  Under  the  old 
standards  our  beloved  country  has  enjoyed  a  century 
of  i  rosperity  unparalleled  in  human  history,  with 
health  and  comfort  of  the  industrial  classes  (our  rich 
being  no  better  off  than  rich  men  everywhere)  that 
so  far  surpassed  those  of  other  countries  as  to  bring 

[167] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

a  flood  of  immigrants  therefrom  to  our  happy  shores. 
Neither  the  lo-hour  work  day,  nor  the  "hard  and 
unjust  conditions  "  which  President  Wilson  conjures 
up  from  his  inner  consciousness  as  "  hedging  labor 
about,"  have  killed  off  our  working  people,  or 
stopped  the  growth  of  our  population,  especially  in 
the  industrial  centers.  The  efficiency  and  produc- 
tivity of  our  labor  was  100  per  cent  in  the  '8o's  com- 
pared with  66  per  cent  today;  and  abundance  of  the 
necessaries  of  life,  with  consequent  low  cost  of  living, 
made  their  old  1880  standard  of  wages  go  farther 
than  the  present  standard,  —  two  and  a  half  times 
higher;  at  least  so  declare  the  labor  leaders!  To 
be  sure,  that  declaration  is  not  quite  true  —  they  are 
not  sticklers  for  exactness  —  for  prices  of  commodi- 
ties are  only  about  two  times  as  high  as  in  1880.  As 
a  matter  of  fact  wages  everywhere  in  this  world 
have  increased  faster  than  prices  of  commodities. 
Thanks  to  enormous  improvements  in  machinery 
and  transportation,  to  new  invention  and  discov- 
ery,—  and  in  spite  of  organized  labor's  systematic 
and  powerful  obstruction,  —  human  productivity  has 
hugely  increased  per  capita  in  capitalistic  countries; 
and  an  increasing  surplus  earning  power  has  accrued 
to  workingmen.  In  this  country  —  I  do  not  attempt 
to  speak  for  foreign  countries  —  this  surplus  is  re- 
flected in  huge  savings  banks  and  life  insurance  re- 
serves belonging  to  laborers,  in  ownership  of  hun- 
dreds of  thousands  of  homes ;  but  most  of  all,  alas !  in 
wasteful  squandering  of  good  money.  This  extrava- 
gance is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge,  known  to 
every  shopkeeper  and  manufacturer,  denounced  by 
every  editor  and  preacher. 

Now  it  is  quite  true,  that  the  extravagant  spender 
never  has  enough;  never  receives  "  an  adequate  wage 
sufficient  to  permit  him  to  live  in  comfort,  unham- 

[168] 


DEMAGOGY   AND   BUREAUCRACY 

pered  by  the  fear  of  poverty  and  want  in  his  old 
age."  But  does  the  President  point  out  that  fact, 
or  note  the  past  and  present  extraordinary  prosperity 
of  our  labor;  does  he  urge  hard  work  and  efficiency 
and  thrift,  and  denounce  loafing,  indolence  and  ex- 
travagance? No,  not  by  a  single  word!  He  speaks 
only  "  to  admit  the  justice  "  of  labor's  complaint. 

Again,  my  pygmy  mind  asks,  "  Of  whom  precisely 
does  the  President,  does  Organized  Labor,  demand 
a  life  of  comfort  and  ample  provision  for  old  age? 
Of  labor  itself,  by  its  own  hard  work  and  thrift? 
Not  on  your  life!  Of  the  President  himself  —  he  is 
well  off  —  and  his  fellow  idealists  in  Cambridge  and 
elsewhere?  Nay,  nay.  They  bind  great  burdens, 
and  lay  them  on  other  men's  shoulders,  but  do  not 
lift  them  themselves  with  so  much  as  a  finger.  Well, 
then  —  of  Rockefeller,  Armour,  and  Gary?  Yes, 
verily  I  But  how  far  would  even  their  great  fortunes 
go,  and  how  long  would  they  last,  if  only  for  their 
own  hundreds  of  thousands  of  employees?  Perhaps, 
then,  of  "  Society  "  in  general  ?  Yes,  at  last  we  have 
it:  of  everybody  except  the  workers  themselves  —  so 
our  idealist  President  would  probably  say,  with  en- 
thusiasm. 

But  who  is  "Society"?  In  a  democracy,  "So- 
ciety" must  mean  "Government":  and  one  can  see 
where  the  President  will  necessarily  land,  and  evi- 
dently would  like  to  land  —  in  bureaucracy,  and  un- 
limited income  taxation.  Where  the  rest  of  us  land 
is  secondary. 

Take  the  past  year  as  an  illustration.  Did  the 
President,  or  for  that  matter  did  Congress,  recognize 
the  perfectly  patent,  world-wide  causes  of  high 
prices;  namely,  shortage  of  labor,  shortage  of  pro- 
duction and  transportation,  colossal  destruction, 
coupled  in  this  country  with  an  orgy  of  spending 

[169] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

unheard-of  wages?  Did  they  admit  the  evident  and 
inevitable  effect  of  the  old  familiar  law  of  supply 
and  demand  in  raising  prices?  Did  they  make  the 
first  move  to  stimulate  labor  to  overcome  shortage 
by  hard  work,  or  urge  the  community  to  reduce  ex- 
cessive demand  by  reducing  excessive  extravagance  ? 
Again  the  answer  must  be,  "  Not  on  your  life."  In- 
stead of  denouncing  indolence  and  extravagance, 
Congress  ordains  perfectly  useless  and  enormously 
expensive  investigations  of  the  packers  and  the  coal 
operators  —  whose  results  will  be  obsolete  long  be- 
fore obtained;  while  the  President  denounces  "  profit- 
eering" and  asks  Congress  for  $4,500,000  to  pay 
lawyers  and  detectives  to  chase  the  law  of  supply  and 
demand  off  the  soil  of  the  United  States,  and  in  that 
way  reduce  the  "  high  cost  of  living." 

Well,  the  Attorney  General  has  been  busy  ever 
since,  spending  those  and  other  appropriations.  His 
bureaucracy  has  grown  like  Jack's  beanstalk,  and  our 
money  has  gone  like  water;  but  has  the  cost  of  sugar 
or  coal,  or  milk  or  eggs,  or  anything  else  under  the 
sun  been  reduced  a  cent's  worth  by  the  tomfoolery? 
A  third  time  the  slang  reply,  "  Not  on  your  life." 

In  the  future,  as  in  the  past,  low  prices  will  come 
only  from  production  in  excess  of  demand;  and  pro- 
duction will  come  only  from  abundant  human  labor, 
aided  by  brains  and  capital,  put  out  for  wages  and 
profits.  But  why  should  labor  exert  itself  to  pro- 
duce, while  the  Clayton  Act  says  "don't  work — com- 
bine; and  hold  up  your  employers  for  a  good  living  " 
— or  while  the  President  says,  "  You  toilers  are  doing 
altogether  too  much  for  your  money.  The  rest  of  us 
are  robbing  you!  Sit  tight,  and  I  will  build  up  a 
great  centralized  bureaucratic  machinery,  that  will 
stand  in  with  your  great  centralized  strike  machinery, 
to  see  that  you  boys  have  plenty  to  spend  now,  and 

[170] 


DEMAGOGY   AND   BUREAUCRACY 

are  taken  care  of  in  your  old  age  by  your  greedy 
employers;  without  bothering  to  work  hard  your- 
selves or  save  anything  meantime." 

Or  why  should  those  who  have  saved  in  the  past 
risk  their  savings,  in  hope  of  profit,  in  building  or 
producing  in  the  United  States,  when  the  President 
says  to  the  crowd :  "  Damn  these  profiteers.  They 
are  going  to  take  advantage  of  existing  demand,  are 
they?  They  are  going  to  exploit  the  needs  of  the 
community  and  the  world,  by  building  homes  to  rent, 
or  by  making  and  selling  necessities  of  life  at  enor- 
mous profit,  are  they?  Well,  just  you  watch  me! 
/'ll  see  to  it  that  they  make  nothing,  and  serve  the 
world  for  the  sake  of  service,  not  for  profit.  Con- 
found those  packers  1  Not  content  with  selling  meat 
so  cheap  that  local  producers  cannot  compete  with 
them,  they  have  the  gall  to  do  the  same  thing  with 
fruits  and  groceries !  Watch  my  administration  put 
them  back  where  they  belong.  The  American  peo- 
ple is  not  going  to  trade  with  any  big  fellows,  not 
under  my  administration,  even  if  folks  think  they 
save  money  by  doing  so:  it  is  not  fair  to  the  little 
fellows,  and  does  not  help  the  1920  Campaign. 
Same  thing  with  the  Steel  Corporation!  The  Su- 
preme Court  can  give  that  concern  a  clean  bill  of 
health  as  often  as  it  likes;  but  while  I  control  the 
Attorney  General,  he  shall  keep  right  on  after  them. 
The  Department  of  Justice  must  spend  its  appropri- 
ations and  more;  or  it  would  not  be  a  government 
department,  or  serve  my  turn.  I  can  point  with 
pride  to  consistent  hostility  to  useful  industry  on  a 
great  scale.  Profiteers,  take  notice !  " 

And  they  will  take  notice  too !  It  is  absolutely 
certain  that  productive  industry  will  "  mark  time  " 
until  the  presidential  election  is  decided,  and  long 
afterwards,  unless  Washington  abandons  its  past 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 


and  present  game  of  clubbing  every  industry  that 
dares  show  its  head  above  the  surface.  High  cost  of 
living  will  not  come  down;  industrial  peace  and  pros- 
perity will  not  ensue;  America  will  not  seize  the  un- 
paralleled opportunity,  existing  as  an  aftermath  of 
war,  to  serve  the  world  out  of  its  unequalled  re- 
sources, at  unheard-of  profit;  nothing  will  grow 
and  overshadow  us,  except  government,  graft,  and 
taxation. 

If  the  foregoing  sounds  extreme,  just  compare  the 
following  United  States  appropriations  (in  round 
millions)  for  1911  and  1919: 

1911 

Deficiencies  Various  Branches  of 
Govt 

Legisl.  Exec,  and  Judicial  Expenses 

Sundry  Civil  Expenses 

Army,  Navy,  Indians,  Rivers,  Har- 
bors, Forts 

Pensions  —  old  wars,  etc 

Consular  and  Diplomatic   .... 

Dept.  of  Agriculture 

Dist.  of  Columbia 

Federal  Cont.  of  Transportation 


$23,000,000 

34,000,000 

106,000,000 

293,000,000 

156,000,000 

4,000,000 

13,000,000 

11,000,000 


1919 

$2,000,000 

70,000,000 

2,012,000,000 


Reclamation 

War  Finance  Corporation  .... 

War  and  Other  Expenses    .... 

Food  and  Fuel  Control 

Bonds  of  Foreign  Goods  Purchased 
Operation  under  Mineral  Act  .  . . 
Farm  Loan  Bonds  . 


14,658,000,000 

220,000,000 

8,000,000 

28,000,000 

15,000,000 

500,000,000 


20,000,000 


4,000,000 


500,000,000 
4,315,000,000 
11,000,000 
3,000,000,000 
50,000,000 
200,000,000 
9,000,000 

Relief  and  Miscellaneous    ....       $664,000,000          $25,598,000,000 
(Tabulation  from  New  York  World  Almanac,  1920.) 

Gentlemen  of  the  press,  however  unwilling  our 
Cambridge  and  other  idealists  may  be  to  trace  the 
evolution  of  abstract  democracy  into  concrete  bureau- 
cracy, cannot  you,  as  men  accustomed  to  deal  with  the 
real  in  daily  life,  see  plainly  enough  that  nothing  but 
useless  and  wasteful  addition  to  the  already  colossal 

[172] 


DEMAGOGY   AND   BUREAUCRACY 

burdens  of  taxation  can  result  from  the  proposition 
to  create  at  Washington  great  centralized  arbitra- 
tion and  conciliation  machinery,  only  to  sit  powerless 
and  helpless  in  solemn  conclave  with  Mr.  Gompers' 
great  centralized  and  powerful  strike  machinery? 
Have  there  not  been  strikes  enough,  and  settlements 
enough,  among  the  seventy-five  thousand  recorded  by 
the  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  to  estab- 
lish the  fact  that  all  great  strikes  usually  end  piece- 
meal, locally;  by  final  direct  agreement  between 
employer  and  employed?  That  intervention  of  cen- 
tralized union  and  arbitration  conference  committees 
merely  tends  to  delay  these  ultimate  settlements,  even 
where  regional  arrangements  are  in  force  (as  with 
the  garment  workers  and  coal  miners),  and  hold 
back  composition  of  local  difficulties  ?  Recall  to  your 
memories  any  of  the  wide-spread  labor  wars,  and 
see  for  yourselves  how  invariably  great  strikes  break 
first  here,  then  there ;  and  always  end  first  where  law 
and  order  are  maintained  and  violence  prevented. 
Can  you  not  see  that  nothing  but  local  conditions  will 
in  the  long  run  prevail  with  both  employer  and  em- 
ployee? that  neither  will  long  endure  a  general 
award  of  arbitrators  that  is  locally  and  individually 
impracticable?  Is  it  not  clear  that  increasing  inter- 
ference of  government  between  Capital  and  Labor 
is  due  to  the  unwillingness  of  politicians  to  refer  so 
many  voters  to  the  impartial  arbitration  of  the  law 
of  supply  and  demand,  just  because  that  arbitration 
is  impartial,  and  final;  based  on  actual  market  con- 
ditions? Must  it  not  be  for  unfair  advantage  that 
Labor  turns  to  a  political  tribunal?  Even  so,  why 
should  the  rest  of  us  follow  suit?  If  the  new  tribunal 
is  to  be  impartial,  its  decrees  must  coincide  with  those 
of  natural  economic  law.  Why,  then,  constitute  it 
at  all? 

[i73] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

You  will  answer,  perhaps :  because  its  decrees  will 
tend  to  create  sound  public  opinion,  and  that  public 
opinion  finally  prevails  in  labor  wars;  and  the  argu- 
ment has  weight.  But  why  not,  while  tackling  the 
question,  educate  public  opinion  to  the  more  direct 
and  final  conclusion  that  the  law  of  supply  and  de- 
mand is  the  one  cool,  calm,  eternal,  omniscient,  ever- 
present,  and  impartial  arbiter;  whose  decisions,  based 
on  actual  conditions,  are  bound  to  be  obeyed  and  to 
do  lasting  justice.  Moreover,  it  is  automatic;  needs 
no  costly  Bureau  at  Washington. 

The  foregoing  considerations  apply  an  hundred- 
fold more  strongly  to  the  "  General  Conference  and 
International  Labor  Office,"  called  for  by  the  League 
of  Nations.  There  is  provision  for  councils,  at- 
tended by  2  government,  I  laborer,  and  I  employer 
delegate  —  4  in  all  —  from  each  nation,  each  per- 
mitted to  take  with  him  2  advisers,  a  delegation  of 
12  in  all,  expenses  paid  by  the  state  that  sends  them; 
and  for  a  permanent  Labor  Office,  and  Labor  News- 
paper, at  the  seat  of  the  League  of  Nations,  with 
a  Director  and  Staff,  all  paid  for  by  the  League. 
(By  the  way,  the  cable  dispatches  a  short  time  ago 
remarked  that  money  provision  for  the  League's 
current  expenses  had  not  yet  been  made,  so  the  poor 
Labor  Director  could  not  draw  his  handsome  salary 
as  yet.)  Well,  labor  leaders  would  indeed  find  it  an 
agreeable  function  to  voyage  to  Switzerland,  as  hon- 
orable delegates  or  advisers,  at  the  expense  of  the 
United  States  government;  there  to  consider  the 
labor  problems  of  the  world.  Still  more  agreeable 
would  it  be  to  become  the  most  conspicuous  person- 
ality in  all  the  earth,  in  the  eyes  of  Labor,  the  Chair- 
man of  the  Conference;  or  even  second  in  line,  the 
International  Director  (Mr.  Gompers  was  slated 
for  the  first-named  job,  until  our  Senate  broke  away 

[i74] 


DEMAGOGY   AND   BUREAUCRACY 

from  the  League  of  Nations).  The  blindest  of  us 
cannot  fail  to  visualize  luxurious  journeys,  dignified 
surroundings,  interesting  general  discussions,  easy, 
conspicuous,  and  well-paid  jobs,  —  presumably  for 
elderly  labor  leaders  and  politicians,  in  and  about 
the  International  Labor  Office  at  Geneva;  especially 
choice  plums  of  bureaucracy,  shaken  from  the  po- 
litical tree  by  each  administration. 

But  —  what  once  more  staggers  my  pygmy  mind  is 
the  query:  "  How  is  the  American  individual  laborer, 
in  practice,  going  to  benefit  by  this  colossal  inter- 
national fake,  any  more  than  he  now  benefits  by  the 
A.  F.  L.  ?  That  is  to  say,  how  can  he  benefit  at  all  ?  " 

The  Lawrence  mills,  for  instance,  which  suffered 
a  bad  strike  two  years  ago,  are  just  now  (May  3, 
1920)  threatened  with  a  walkout  of  one  hundred 
and  twenty-five  stationary  engineers,  which  may 
throw  out  many  thousands  of  mill  hands  and  cause 
a  general  shutdown.  If  the  United  States  were  a 
party  to  the  League  of  Nations,  would  its  Labor 
Bureau  attempt  to  handle  such  a  case?  If  it  did  so, 
how  long  would  the  mill  owners  or  the  mill  hands  of 
Massachusetts  abide  by  a  decision  of  the  Interna- 
national  Labor  Office  at  Geneva,  say  in  this  present 
emergency,  that  offended  either  ooe  or  the  other? 
If  the  interest  of  the  mill  owners  at  Bradford,  Eng- 
land, or  Lisle,  France,  were  to  prolong  the  Lawrence 
strike,  how  would  the  American  owners  regard  a 
decision  so  influenced  by  them?  Is  there  the  re- 
motest danger  that  either  England  or  France  would 
bring  to  bear,  through  Washington  or  the  State 
House  on  Beacon  Hill,  an  international  boycott,  or 
send  cruisers  to  enforce  compliance  of  mill  owners 
or  strikers  at  Lawrence;  or  if  either  should  attempt 
to  do  so,  that  Governor  Coolidge,  or  Senator  Lodge, 
or  the  American  people  behind  them,  would  stand  it 

[175] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

for  an  hour?  Would  the  Yankee  Division  ever  cross 
the  seas  again  to  protect  France  against  a  general 
French  railway  strike,  such  as  has  been  threatened 
for  the  last  few  days  ?  Or  would  France  either  ask 
or  consent  to  such  an  invasion?  Merely  to  ask  these 
questions  is  to  answer  them  —  a  thousand  times  No  ! 

I  suppose  that  Messrs.  Lloyd  George  and  Cle- 
menceau  and  Wilson  promised  to  Messrs.  Barnes, 
Henderson,  Thomas,  and  Gompers,  this  League-of- 
Nations  show,  as  part  payment  for  the  labor  vote 
in  their  respective  campaigns  of  1916—1918  in- 
clusive; but  why  should  any  country  thus  pay  party 
political  debts?  You,  gentlemen  of  the  press,  should 
read  Mr.  Andrew  Furuseth's  remarks  opposing  the 
Labor  provisions  of  the  League  (Report  A.  F.  L. 
1919  Convention,  page  401),  where  he  says:  "Who 
is  to  determine  what  is  to  be  lawful  in  this  case? 
Why  —  the  International  Super-Legislature,  not  you 
in  the  United  States.  .  .  .  Since  when  has  the 
A.  F.  L.  gone  on  record  .  .  .  and  set  a  minimum 
wage  .  .  .  by  some  one  else,  instead  of  having  it 
set  by  themselves?  .  .  .  It  makes  me  shudder !" 

So  says  one  Labor  leader!  He  agrees  apparently 
with  Senator  Lodge.  Do  not  you  too,  gentlemen, 
agree  with  both  experts?  Are  we  not  better  off  al- 
together without  perfectly  useless  governmental 
labor  meddling,  domestic  or  foreign  —  without  costly 
bureaucracy;  the  wasteful  handmaid  of  demagogy, 
masking  as  humanitarianism? 

Mr.  Furuseth  need  not  have  shuddered,  by  the  way. 
Mr.  Gompers  promptly  got  up  after  him  in  the  Con- 
vention, and  explained  just  as  Mr.  Wilson  explained, 
that  the  League  had  no  teeth  in  it.  "  My  friend 
Mr.  Furuseth,"  he  says,  "puts  great  stress  on  the 
words  '  lawful  organizations/  and  tries  to  leave  the 
impression  that  this  super-convention  will  determine 

[176] 


DEMAGOGY   AND   BUREAUCRACY 

what  is  lawful  and  what  is  not.  Nothing  is  farther 
from  the  truth.  Every  country  will  determine  for 
itself  what  is  lawful  and  what  is  not."  Precisely  so! 
But  in  that  case,  why  set  up  an  international  show  at 
all? 

In  a  previous  sentence  Mr.  Gompers  gives  one 
reason  why.  "  For  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the 
world,"  he  says,  "  the  nations  of  the  world  have 
written  into  a  document  that  they  agree  that  workers 
have  a  right  to  organize."  We  have  seen  before 
that  Mr.  Gompers  enlarges  the  interpretation  of 
that  right  to  mean  centralized  national  control;  and 
now  he  would  have  world  control.  I  suspect  it  is 
because  he  is  conscious  of  the  inherent  weakness  of 
the  "  right  to  organize,"  when  it  conflicts  with  the 
welfare  of  the  community,  that  he  so  consistently 
seeks  its  political  assertion  and  sanction  at  home  and 
abroad. 


[i77] 


CHAPTER  XXII 

CARROLL   D.    WRIGHT'S   REPORT   OF   STRIKES 
AND    LOCKOUTS 

THE  late  Carroll  D.  Wright,  while  Commissioner 
of  Labor,  carefully  tabulated  the  strikes  and  lock- 
outs from  1 88 1  to  1905.  Since  then  his  successors 
have  not  continued  the  same  accurate  analysis  and  ' 
classifications  of  causes  and  results;  and  totals  for 
the  last  fifteen  years  must  be  guessed  at  more  or  less. 
From  1 88 1  to  1905  he  recorded  36,557  strikes  (of 
at  least  one  day),  throwing  out  of  work  8,485,000 
hands  for  an  average  of  25.4  days,  involving  181,- 
407  concerns;  and  1546  lockouts,  involving  18,547 
concerns  and  averaging  85  days'  duration.  Ninety 
per  cent  of  the  strikes,  and  substantially  all  of  the 
lockouts,  were  caused  by  Organized  Labor,  which 
won,  or  partly  won,  65  per  cent  of  strikes  declared, 
as  against  but  44  per  cent  won  by  unorganized  labor. 
Employers  won,  or  partly  won,  68  per  cent  of  the 
lockouts  declared.  Strikes  succeeded  as  follows :  For 
raised  wages,  69  per  cent;  for  shorter  hours,  61  per 
cent;  for  recognition  of  unions,  57  per  cent;  against 
reduction  of  wages,  48  per  cent;  sympathetic  strikes, 
23  per  cent. 

Since  1905,  the  last  fifteen  years  have  seen  about 
as  many  more  strikes,  —  some  38,000,  —  (details 
not  accurately  tabulated  by  the  union  laborer  who 
has  meantime  been  at  the  head  of  the  Department 
of  Labor)  as  in  the  twenty-five  years  previous. 
Their  causes  and  results  are  poorly  analyzed;  but 

[178] 


seem  not  to  differ  materially  from  the  Wright  Statis- 
tical averages. 

The  forty-year  mass  of  information  yielded  is, 
however,  enormous;  and  affords  sound  basis  for  in- 
dependent judgment  as  to  the  actual  value  and  real 
accomplishment  of  Mr.  Gompers'  great  work  in  Or- 
ganization of  Labor. 

To  begin  with,  if  we  figure  on  an  average  normal 
working  year  of  250  days,  in  doors  and  out,  for  the 
average  number  of  industrial  workers  (5,200,000 
between  1 88 1  and  1905,  as  per  the  United  States  Cen- 
sus), the  time  actually  lost  by  strikes  during  twenty- 
five  years  was  less  than  two  thirds  of  one  per  cent 
of  the  whole  —  an  almost  negligible  fraction! 

As  Organized  Labor  for  that  twenty-five  years 
averaged  not  over  one  seventh  of  all  industrial  labor, 
and  yet  called  nine  tenths  of  all  the  strikes  —  it  was 
roughly  (man  for  man)  fifty  times  as  pugnacious  — 
made  fifty  times  the  trouble.  Nevertheless,  organ- 
ized labor  won  but  65  per  cent  of  its  strikes,  while 
unorganized  labor  won  44  per  cent. 

That  is,  the  net  advantage  shown  over  non-union 
labor  in  winning  strikes  (which  is  the  object  of  or- 
ganization of  Labor)  is  but  one  win  in  three;  though 
it  calls  them  fifty  times  as  often!  The  extreme 
minuteness  of  this  net  advantage,  —  one  win  in  three 
during  two  thirds  of  one  per  cent  only  of  normal 
working  time,  which  is  practically  no  advantage  at 
all,  —  confirms  from  another  angle  the  revelation  of 
Chapter  IX  of  this  book,  and  shows  why  union  labor 
has  not  gained  faster  than  non-union  labor  during 
the  last  forty  years!  The  great  machinery  simply 
cannot  make  good ! 

Let  me  urge  upon  your  apprehension,  gentlemen 
of  the  press,  that  strike  machinery  has  gained  no 
substantial  advantage  for  union  labor  since  1880; 

[i79] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

but  on  the  contrary  has  steadily  cost  its  votaries  loss, 
both  of  wages  and  of  their  purchasing  power. 

Let  me  now  ask  you  as  good  citizens  to  say,  of 
what  use  is  this  great  fighting  machine  to  the  com- 
munity? Is  any  town  or  region  better  off  by  reason 
of  one  or  a  hundred  strikes  or  lockouts?  Is  govern- 
ment better  off  by  reason  of  being  forced  because  of 
machine-made  riot  or  machine-cast  ballot  to  meddle 
with  such  purely  private  affairs  as  the  wages  which 
an  hundred  or  ten  thousand  men  are,  or  are  not, 
content  to  take,  for  doing  lawful  work  offered  by 
employers?  Is  the  nation  better  off  by  reason  of  a 
machine  for  driving  a  class-wedge  into  our  social 
solidarity?  Is  constitutional  right  better  established 
because  4  million  men  stand  together  to  deny  the 
liberties  of  40  million? 

From  every  point  the  huge  record  of  trades- 
unionism  is  one  of  purely  negative  result.  As  labor 
cannot  wait  and  capital  can,  it  stands  to  reason,  when 
it  comes  to  test  of  endurance,  that  Labor  has  no 
chance  against  Capital.  For  instance,  employers 
won,  as  shown  above,  68  per  cent  of  the  lockouts, 
though  Organized  Labor  won  65  per  cent  of  the 
strikes.  In  other  words,  when  it  is  sufficiently  im- 
portant for  the  employer  to  fight,  he  keeps  it  up,  and 
wins.  These  lockouts  averaged  85  days  long,  against 
25  days  for  strikes!  As  was  the  case  in  my  Chicago 
strike  experience,  in  due  time  the-  unions  always 
throw  the  strikers  overboard,  and  let  them  shift  for 
themselves.  Then  the  poor  fellows  go  back  to  work, 
wiser  and  worse  off. 

Once  more :  what  do  the  laborers  themselves  gain 
by  "Organization"?  As  Horace  says,  " Parturiunt 
monies;  nascetur  ridiculus  mus" 


[180] 


CHAPTER   XXIII 

COLLECTIVE    BARGAINING.      PROS   AND   CONS 

IN  order  to  guard  against  my  own  inherent  skepti- 
cism as  to  the  actual  value  of  trades-unionism  and 
collective  bargaining,  I  have  asked  the  judgment  of 
friends  upon  it  in  two  industries,  in  which  it  at  first 
seemed  to  me  great  results  had  been  attained  by  the 
unions  for  their  members;  with  perhaps  stability  in 
work  and  production  and  benefit  also  to  the  trade 
involved  and  the  community.  I  refer  to  the  Gar- 
ment Workers  and  the  United  Mine  Workers  in- 
dustries. 

Like  every  one  else,  I  was  and  am  in  keen  sym- 
pathy with  the  victims  of  what  is  called  "  sweating" 
in  the  clothing  trades;  and  with  the  men  who  pass 
their  days  underground  in  the  grime  and  darkness  of 
coal  mining,  with  risk  of  life  from  deadly  gases  and 
damp.  There  seemed  no  way  out  of  their  hard  con- 
ditions, and  in  the  garment  industry  out  of  their 
old-time  starvation  wages;  because  both  industries 
were  so  largely  carried  on  by  small  operators,  under 
fierce  competition  in  the  sale  of  their  respective 
products.  This  was  especially  true  in  the  "  sweat- 
shops " ;  run  in  the  great  seaboard  cities,  for  the  most 
part  by  Russian  and  Polish  Jews,  immigrants  them- 
selves, who  had  by  incessant  labor  and  thrift  saved 
enough  to  hire  a  few  of  their  compatriots  to  make, 
for  instance,  shirt  waists  at  home  on  piecework;  and 
whose  imported  habits  and  standards  of  life  led 
them  to  take  a  pittance  as  their  wage.  Their  em- 

[181] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

ployers  in  turn  sold  to  the  great  department  stores 
or  the  smaller  shops,  kept  again  by  men  who  had 
fought  their  way  up  by  hard  work  and  thrift;  and 
who  under  the  fierce  competition  had  no  mercy  on 
themselves  or  their  work  people.  Few  of  them 
made  money,  or  grew  great  enough  to  put  in  good 
plants  and  mechanical  equipment;  for  the  shops  that 
bought  their  stuff  resold  it  again  to  the  poorer  classes 
at  fantastically  low  prices.  As  is  always  the  case,  the 
mass  of  the  people  got  the  benefit  of  the  situation; 
and  it  seemed  hopeless,  without  entire  reconstruc- 
tion of  the  whole  machinery  of  distribution,  to  do 
better  by  the  workers.  Now,  however,  the  thing 
has  been  done;  and  wages  and  conditions  in  the  gar- 
ment trades  are  certainly  most  favorable  to  the 
workers.  I  had  been  of  the  impression  that  the 
change  was  entirely  due  to  Organization  of  Labor; 
and  am  still  unwilling  to  say  that  it  is  not  largely 
the  work  of  the  garment  workers'  unions;  yet  here 
again  I  find  our  old  acquaintances,  the  law  of  supply 
and  demand,  and  profiteering,  at  the  bottom  of  the 
improvement.  Apparently  the  special  success  and 
great  growth  of  firms  like  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx 
of  Chicago,  of  Kuppenheimer  and  the  Rochester 
manufacturers,  the  Troy  shirt  and  collar  makers, 
and  of  other  great  advertisers  and  merchants,  as 
well  as  manufacturers,  has  enabled  them  to  build 
great,  efficient,  sanitary  plants  to  which  the  workers 
come;  to  stop  "sweated"  home  work,  and  largely 
increase  production;  to  pay  high  and  higher  wages, 
enormously  increased  during  the  war  shortage.  In 
these  big  shops,  with  their  hundreds  or  thousands 
of  employees,  the  union  organizers  found  their  game 
all  laid  out  for  them;  and  a  long  succession  of  strikes 
led  to  the  collective  bargaining  that  now  so  largely 
characterizes  the  garment  industries.  Yet  even  here 

[182] 


there  is  not  complete  agreement  of  the  doctors.  I 
recently  wrote  a  very  large  Western  Company,  ask- 
ing the  following  question : 

"Has  the  organization  of  labor  in  the  clothing 
manufacturing  industry  had  the  effect  of  stabilizing 
and  standardizing  wages  and  conditions  of  labor,  to 
the  benefit  (i)  of  the  industry;  (2)  of  the  working 
people;  (3)  of  the  individual  manufacturer?" 

They  answer  that  for  nine  years  they  have  had 
in  force  "a  form  of  collective  bargaining"  with  the 
Amalgamated  Clothing  Workers  of  America,  and 
have  had  no  serious  strikes ;  on  account  of  "  the  very 
elaborate  labor  department  and  arbitration  machin- 
ery maintained.  We  are  practically  the  only  large 
manufacturers  in  the  country  that  have  been  able 
to  conduct  business  without  labor  difficulties  over  a 
course  of  years.  On  the  whole,  our  company  re- 
gards its  experience  with  collective  bargaining  as  a 
success."  They  further  said  that  sweating  has  dis- 
appeared from  the  industry,  and  wages  have  almost 
quadrupled  in  eight  years.  Great  shortage  of  labor, 
especially  during  the  last  year,  has  pushed  wages  up 
to  an  average  of  $40  per  week.  From  $50  to  $90 
per  week  are  very  common.  The  small  concerns 
have  had  to  follow  the  big  ones. 

On  the  other  hand,  they  say  another  large  Roches- 
ter firm,  Michaels,  Stern  &  Co.,  are  prosecuting  an 
injunction  suit  against  the  Amalgamated;  which  last, 
under  advice  of  Professor  Felix  Frankfurter  of 
Harvard,  is  using  this  case  to  clarify  the  rights  of 
Organized  Labor  in  New  York  State. 

All  of  which  is  exceeding  interesting;  and  comes 
back  to  the  same  old  governing  law  of  local  condi- 
tions—  with  no  hard  and  fast  horizontal  rules,  that 
can  apply  universally  —  the  very  antithesis  of  col- 
lectivism. You  will  note  how  reservedly  my  Western 

[183] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

correspondents  say  "  on  the  whole"  they  regard 
their  experience  with  collective  bargaining  as  a  suc- 
cess. What  it  would  have  been  without  their  large 
financial  means,  to  back  it  up  with  other  substantial 
attractions  to  their  laboring  people,  is  another  story 
that  they  do  not  tell. 

I  wrote,  too,  to  a  large  coal  and  iron  firm  in 
Cleveland;  friends  familiar  with  the  soft  coal  indus- 
try. They  answered  as  follows : 

"We  do  not  believe  the  soft  coal  industry  has 
been  benefited  by  collective  bargaining  with  the 
United  Mine  Workers. 

"  There  is  a  difference  of  opinion  among  opera- 
tors on  this  question,  some  favoring  collective  bar- 
gaining, others  opposed. 

"As  a  rule  unorganized  labor  in  the  soft  coal 
industry  has  consistently  gained  in  wages  and  con- 
ditions faster  than  has  organized.  This  to  my  mind 
is  due  to  desire  of  operators  to  head  off  the  unioniz- 
ing of  their  properties." 

Once  more  the  doctors  disagree;  meantime  the 
non-union  man  works  the  law  of  supply  and  demand 
as  his  best  friend.  I  omitted  to  say  above,  when 
quoting  the  Western  clothing  firm,  that  they  also 
remarked  that  wages  in  the  New  York  garment 
trades,  which  "  are  feebly  organized"  are  $5  to  $10 
higher  than  in  Chicago,  strongly  organized.  It  is 
local  supply,  not  organization,  of  labor  that  fixes 
wages. 

I  also  omitted  to  say  that  my  coal-mine  friend 
added  the  instructive  remark:  "We  are  outside  the 
district  in  which  the  United  Mine  Workers  operate. 
Our  manager,  however,  has  had  experience  in  the 
4  closed  shop '  districts.  He  says  there  is  a  differ- 
ence of  opinion  among  the  operators  as  to  collective 
bargaining  with  the  U.  M.  W.  He  is  opposed  to 

[184] 


COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING 

it,  but  I  do  not  believe  we  would  oppose  collective 
bargaining  with  our  own  men.  Personally,  I  favor 
the  latter." 

The  manager  gave  his  reasons  for  opposing  a 
deal  with  the  U.  M.  W. ;  among  them  especially  the 
"  check-off "  system,  by  which  the  employers  agree 
with  the  union  to  take  out  of  the  men's  pay  their 
union  dues,  fines,  etc.,  and  turn  them  over  to  the 
union  treasurer  —  thus  "cutting  a  stick  to  welt  their 
own  backs  with.  Which,"  adds  the  manager,  "  would 
be  a  joke,  were  not  the  consequences  so  serious." 

This  convenient  way  of  making  their  members 
pay  up,  even  against  their  will,  is  always  proposed 
as  part  of  "  recognition  of  the  union  "  in  collective 
bargains;  though  not  always  accepted  by  the  em- 
ployer. It  is  one  of  the  most  powerful  reasons  for 
the  insistence  of  the  labor  leaders  on  collective  bar- 
gaining; and  shows  excellent  business  acumen  on 
their  part. 

Their  main  reason,  however,  is  evidently  central- 
ization of  labor  control.  No  better  illustration  of 
this  purpose  can  be  cited  than  the  existing  situation 
(May  29)  at  the  United  Shoe  Machinery  Com- 
pany's works  at  Beverly,  Mass.  A  strike  has  been 
in  progress  there  for  some  weeks,  called  to  force 
the  company  to  abandon  the  practice  of  making 
written  contracts  of  employment  with  its  men  indi- 
vidually. Of  course,  there  can  be  no  question  of  the 
entire  constitutional  and  legal  right  of  both  com- 
pany and  men  to  sign  such  contracts;  and  of  course 
such  contracts  seriously  interfere  with  union  plans 
for  calling  strikes  from  time  to  time;  because  the 
courts  will  interpose  by  injunction,  and  indeed  have 
done  so  already  in  this  case,  to  forbid  the  men  from 
breaking  them.  Today's  papers  report  a  meeting 
of  representatives  of  thirty-five  labor  unions,  most 

[185] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

of  which  must  be  in  no  way  connected  with  the 
U.  S.  M.  works,  who  voted  to  request  the  various 
unions  of  the  district  to  consider  the  question  of  a 
general  strike  "  as  the  only  solution  for  this  un- 
American  attack  on  organized  labor  —  the  applica- 
tion of  the  individual  contract."  Resolutions  were 
adopted  recommending  that  the  Executive  Board  of 
the  A.  F.  L.  consult  counsel,  to  the  end  that  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  be  amended  to  prevent 
the  application  of  the  individual  contract  in  indus- 
tries where  the  employees  work  for  hourly  wages; 
that  counsel  be  engaged  to  draft  an  amendment  to 
the  State  constitution,  providing  for  the  election  of 
all  judges  by  the  people;  and  that  the  Montreal  Con- 
vention of  the  A.  F.  L.  (coming  soon)  shall  place 
the  United  Shoe  Machinery  Company  on  the  "un- 
fair list."  (This  last  means  to  boycott  it.) 

Of  course  there  can  be  no  possible  objection  to 
any  movement  by  union  leaders  to  change  the  con- 
stitution in  a  constitutional  way,  whether  of  the  state 
or  the  nation.  Such  use  of  the  labor  vote  is  lawful 
and  aboveboard.  We  can  all  of  us  consider  it,  and 
meet  it  at  the  polls  as  we  see  fit.  But,  gentlemen  of 
the  press,  here  you  have  the  destruction  of  individual 
right  by  trades-unionism  squarely  put  up  to  you  as 
a  proposed  alteration  of  our  fundamental  organic 
law.  What  do  you  think  of  it? 

The  United  Shoe  Machinery  Company  was  vio- 
lating no  moral  or  statute  law  in  offering  steady 
work  and  good  wages  in  useful  industry,  upon  con- 
dition that  the  terms  and  duration  of  employment 
should  be  defined  by  written  agreement  executed  by 
both  parties;  the  men  who  signed  such  agreements 
did  so  voluntarily,  for  the  sake  of  the  jobs;  no  man 
did  or  could  compel  them  to  sign;  there  was  no 
trouble  with  work,  wages,  or  conditions  between 

[186] 


COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING 

company  and  men;  nothing  was  wrong,  except  that 
a  court  might  (and  did  when  it  came  to  the  point 
of  a  threatened  strike)  interfere  to  say  to  the  men 
that  union  orders  could  not  set  aside  the  "  obligation 
of  contracts,"  an  obligation  held  so  sacred  by  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  that  even  Sover- 
eign States  were  forbidden  to  pass  laws  impairing 
it.  But  never  mind !  union  control  of  an  "  auto- 
cratic" corporation  and  its  laborers  is  at  stake.  All 
the  industries  of  an  entire  district  must  be  para- 
lyzed; the  constitutions  of  state  and  nation  must  be 
amended;  judges  must  hold  office  in  terror  of 
"Labor"  at  the  next  election;  the  whole  political 
and  economic  system  of  the  United  States  must  be 
so  changed  as  to  secure  our  domination  by  Mr. 
Samuel  Gompers,  or  by  whomsoever  may  be  presi- 
dent of  our  "  Super-State,"  the  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor! 

The  reporter  does  not  say  that  this  labor  meeting 
at  Beverly  was  "  authorized  "  from  the  Washington 
headquarters  of  the  Federation.  If  not,  I  may  be 
doing  Mr.  Gompers  a  partial  injustice  as  to  this 
particular  instance.  We  shall  shortly  see.  But  it 
conforms  to  the  general  political  program  laid  down 
by  the  Federation,  as  you  are  aware.  At  least  there 
is  this  sign  of  progress  in  the  education  of  Labor, 
that  not  so  long  ago  its  attitude  was  "to  hell  with 
the  Constitution!"  Today  it  merely  says  "amend 
the  Constitution." 

But  to  come  back,  in  concluding  this  chapter  on 
"Collective  Bargaining,"  to  its  subject  matter;  take 
it  all  in  all,  I  will  back  the  non-union  laborer,  —  who 
is  free  to  work  as  hard  as  he  likes,  and  make  all  the 
wages  he  can,  —  both  to  make  more  money  and  to 
live  a  freer  and  happier  life,  than  the  man  who  goes 
by  the  union  gospel  of  sloth,  and  gives  least  return 

[187] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

for  what  he  gets.  His  employer  can  play  that  same 
game,  holding  most  of  the  trumps,  too;  even  in 
trades  so  peculiarly  adapted  to  unionization  and  col- 
lective bargaining  as  the  garment  and  coal-mining 
industries  —  Mr.  Gompers  to  the  contrary  notwith- 
standing. 


[188] 


CHAPTER   XXIV 

COERCION.      VIOLENCE.      PICKETING 

IN  Mr.  Gompers'  debate  with  Governor  Allen,  al- 
ready referred  to,  he  expressly  asserts  the  law-abid- 
ing character  of  Organized  Labor,  and  its  officially 
taken  attitude  against  violence.  He  has  always  said 
that  such  was  the  attitude  of  Labor,  and  I  think  that 
its  public  votes  and  resolutions,  such  as  there  may 
have  been,  are  probably  in  accordance  with  his  words. 
Certainly  it  would  be  foolish  to  vote  or  resolve  other- 
wise. Nevertheless,  there  is  seldom  a  prolonged  or 
moderately  large  strike  without  violence,  greater  or 
less.  The  whole  proceeding  is  frankly  one  of  coer- 
cion; and  is  usually  carried  out  by  the  picket  line, 
which  in  itself  contains  the  powder  and  match  for 
an  explosion,  and  needs  but  the  careless  hand  to  put 
one  to  the  other.  When  it  comes,  Labor  usually 
glosses  it  over  as  what  golfers  would  call  "  a  rub 
of  the  green,"  a  regrettable  but  unintentional  and 
legitimate  incident  of  industrial  "  war." 

There  are  two  fallacies  under  this  gloss;  first, 
that  in  civil  life  war  is  not  the  lawful  remedy  for 
difference  of  opinion  between  buyer  and  seller  of 
labor  or  anything  else,  the  courts  are  there  if  the 
case  is  justiciable  —  the  unions  have  no  right  to 
declare  war;  second,  the  explosion,  though  perhaps 
unintentional,  can  hardly  be  called  unpremeditated. 
The  unions  are  morally  responsible  for  violence  that 
occurs  along  the  picket  line;  and  they  usually  show 
that  to  be  the  fact  by  employing  counsel  to  defend 

[189] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

sluggers.  They  did,  for  instance,  in  my  little  type- 
writer strike  already  cited;  and  in  the  notorious 
McNamara  dynamiting  case  at  Los  Angeles,  and  in 
numerous  other  cases.  Allan  Pinkerton's  dictum, 
"  Organized  Labor  is  organized  violence,"  stands 
proven  as  against  Mr.  Gompers'  denial  of  lawlessness 
by  three  things:  first,  that  plugging,  sabotage,  etc., 
so  often  occur,  and  that  the  victims  are  so  seldom 
union  men;  second,  that  the  unions  pay  lawyers  to 
defend  the  guilty,  if  caught;  third,  and  most  con- 
vincing, that  the  unions  have  never  made  the  smallest 
effort  to  prevent  or  end  violence. 

If  they  really  wish  to  be  law-abiding,  why  do  the 
unions  not  join  with  the  state  in  forbidding  and 
penalizing  lawlessness  among  their  own  members ;  or 
in  arresting  or  punishing  those  guilty?  Did  you  ever 
hear,  gentlemen  of  the  press,  of  the  unions  giving  up 
a  slugger,  or  machine  wrecker;  or  of  their  offering 
a  reward  for  detection  of  those  who  cast  that  slur  on 
union  fame ;  or  of  their  fining  or  expelling  any  man 
who  chased  a  "  scab  "  away  from  a  job,  or  casually 
broke  his  head  with  a  brick?  Would  it  be  possible 
for  violence  to  occur  on  the  picket  line,  always  in 
broad  daylight,  and  in  presence  of  fellow  pickets, 
without  their  knowledge  and  connivance;  or  indeed 
without  the  knowledge  and  backing  of  their  unions  ? 
Could  not  the  latter  suspend,  fine,  or  expel  the  culprit 
every  time,  if  they  really  wished  to  uphold  the  law, 
and  respect  the  rights  of  the  non-union  man  or  the 
employer? 

If  the  unions  rely  solely,  as  they  pretend,  on  the 
unquestioned  right  of  the  laborer  to  quit  work,  col- 
lectively, is  there  any  need  of  the  picket  line  at  all? 
Why  can  the  strikers  not  go  fishing,  or  otherwise 
enjoy  a  holiday,  far  away  from  the  works  and  the 
inevitable  risks  of  the  picket  line  ?  Why  do  not  the 

[190] 


COERCION,   VIOLENCE,   PICKETING 

union  leaders  command  them  to  stay  away  entirely, 
and  abolish  the  picket  line  altogether? 

You  know  the  answer,  gentlemen,  as  well  as  I  do. 
They  do  not  rely  entirely,  or  even  largely,  on  peace- 
fully refusing  to  work;  though  in  the  long  run  that 
is  their  best  bower.  What  they  do  figure  upon  is 
perfectly  unlawful  prevention  of  the  free  flow  of 
labor,  and  perhaps  of  material;  so  as  to  deprive  the 
employer  of  the  benefit  of  free  competition  in  the 
labor  market,  to  which  he  has  moral  and  lawful 
right. 

At  the  risk  of  boring  you  with  iteration,  gentle- 
men, let  me  once  more  urge  you,  as  patriotic  men,  to 
condemn  this  whole  philosophy  of  union  coercion  as 
morally,  economically,  and  politically  criminal,  and 
practically  vicious;  not  only  debauching  the  laborer 
as  craftsman  and  citizen,  but  robbing  him  as  wage- 
worker,  for  the  benefit  of  a  few  labor  leaders. 


[191] 


CHAPTER   XXV 

UNION  PROPAGANDA.    "  PEACEFUL 
PENETRATION" 

As  I  have  said  elsewhere,  the  Report  of  the  A.  F.  L. 
is  a  remarkable  document,  worth  careful  study. 
It  discloses  the  perfectly  legitimate  program  of 
"  peaceful  penetration,"  as  the  Germans  used  to  call 
it,  by  trades-unionism,  directed  not  only  at  our  po- 
litical but  also  at  our  educational  institutions. 

The  current  campaign  for  election  of  friends  of 
labor  to  Congress  and  other  offices  is,  of  course, 
familiar.  The  departments  at  Washington,  notably 
those  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  are  filled  with  union 
friends;  the  Secretary  of  Labor,  Mr.  W.  B.  Wilson, 
being  a  union  man  in  good  standing.  Mr.  Louis 
Post,  whose  activities  in  the  matter  of  relieving  aliens 
from  deportations  are  under  fire,  is  next  thing  to 
a  laborite ;  using  the  term  without  offense.  Such  so- 
called  economists  as  Mr.  Jett  Lauck  give  govern- 
mental official  weight  to  what  might  be  called  labor 
economics,  fed  out  to  the  public  in  wage  disputes. 
For  instance,  Mr.  Lauck  a  short  time  ago  testified 
in  the  Boston  Elevated  Railway  wage  adjustment, 
for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  the  law  of  supply 
and  demand  in  the  fixing  of  wages  is  inapplicable  to 
meet  the  present  situation.  He  declared  that  the 
workman  is  entitled  to  a  living  wage  regardless  of 
the  condition  of  the  labor  market;  that  five  different 
commissions  of  the  national  government  had  com- 
piled estimates  of  the  minimum  income  required  to 

[192] 


UNION   PROPAGANDA 

support  an  average  family  of  five,  the  highest  being 
$2533.97  per  annum;  and  that  the  Fall  River  budget 
of  the  National  Industrial  Conference  board  had 
estimated  $1715.55  per  annum  as  the  lowest  for  the 
same  family,  which  last  Mr.  Lauck  condemned  as 
entirely  inadequate.  Mr.  Lauck  attacked  "  profit- 
eers "  and  the  packers;  and  said  the  latter's  em- 
ployees might  be  given  an  increase  of  1000  per 
cent  in  wages  without  equalling  the  increased  profits 
taken  by  the  packers  during  and  since  the  war,  etc., 
etc.  Now,  the  figures  given  in  my  Chapter  on  So- 
cial Justice,  which  are  from  the  latest  government 
reports,  according  to  the  World  Almanac,  showed 
an  average  actual  gross  production  for  1919  of 
$1440  per  worker. 

It  thus  appears  that  Mr.  Lauck  testifies  that  the 
minimum  on  which  an  average  family  can  live  is 
nearly  $1100  per  annum  more  than  the  actual  gross 
output  on  which  the  50  million  workers  of  the 
United  States  not  only  actually  did  live  very  abund- 
antly in  1919,  but  moreover  laid  up  unheard-of 
savings  deposits  out  of!  Such  is  a  fair  sample  of 
the  kind  of  Labor  propaganda  fed  to  the  American 
people  by  the  skilled  hand  of  the  labor  demagogue ! 
It  well  illustrates  the  "peaceful  penetration"  of  our 
bureaucracy,  our  tax-eating  fraternity,  by  the  "  friends 
of  Labor."  Mr.  Lauck  wound  up  by  saying  "  Yes  " 
to  counsel,  who  inferred  from  his  figures  that  Bos- 
tonians,  who  are  receiving  less  than  75  cents  per 
hour,  are  not  getting  a  subsistence  wage !  Of  course 
the  object  of  the  testimony  was  to  hold  up  the  street- 
car riders  or  the  city  for  whatever  fares  might  be 
necessary  to  support  the  fantastic  wage-scales  he 
swore  to. 

Is  it  any  wonder,  gentlemen,  that  wherever  the 
pick  of  investigation  is  struck  into  the  cost  of  ad- 

[i93l 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

ministration  at  Washington,  there  is  turned  up  a 
rank  and  rotten  mass  of  corruption  and  waste?  Sec- 
retary Wilson  of  the  Department  of  Labor  said  the 
other  day  regarding  deportation:  "Class  struggle, 
mass  action,  conquest  of  political  power,  dictator- 
ship of  the  proletariat,  socialism,  communism,  one 
big  union,  shop  committees,  shop  stewards,  etc.,  in 
the  Communist  Labor  party  platform,  however  rep- 
rehensible to  the  minds  of  many  of  our  people,  do 
not  bring  the  organization  within  the  purview  of  the 
Act,  as  long  as  no  force  or  violence  are  used."  Of 
course !  These  things  are  mere  methods  of  looting 
the  thrifty;  let  us  say  the  taxpayers.  Probably  the 
Honorable  Secretary  is  right  regarding  the  technical 
purview  of  the  Act;  but  I  wonder  if  he  could  forget 
Labor  long  enough  to  bring  such  grotesque  "  eco- 
nomics "  as  Mr.  Lauck's  within  the  purview,  techni- 
cal or  moral,  of  official  integrity?  The  use  of  force 
or  violence  would  be  almost  better  than  such  sworn 
testimony;  such  Impossible  governmental  represen- 
tations; sowing  such  useless,  unsatisfiable  discontent. 
In  our  school  system  also,  peaceful  penetration 
by  Organized  Labor  goes  on.  Reports  of  commit- 
tees show  that  organization  of  a  teachers'  union  affili- 
ated with  the  A.  F.  L.  is  under  way;  and  night 
schools,  some  of  them,  as  in  Boston,  are  carried  on 
in  Public  School  Buildings.  I  have  not  been  able  to 
study  the  courses  of  teaching  offered  at  these  schools, 
which  seem  to  be  intended  largely  for  the  foreigners, 
far  enough  to  judge  of  their  purpose.  Of  course, 
no  man  would  grudge  any  progress  in  education  to 
the  working  classes;  yet  if  such  economics  as  Lauck's 
are  taught,  such  hostility  to  constitutional  rights  and 
the  judiciary  as  Gompers  voices,  such  class  politics 
as  the  labor  campaign  program  of  1920  outlines, 
it  behooves  us,  gentlemen  of  the  press,  to  look  to  our 


UNION   PROPAGANDA 

schools!  Certainly,  any  educational  activities  of 
Labor  will  not  run  counter  to  its  own  carefully  chosen 
course. 

There  has  been  considerable  Labor  penetration 
of  our  public  services,  state  and  municipal;  as  was 
much  discussed  at  the  time  of  the  Boston  and  Atlanta 
police  strikes.  All  through  our  public  employment 
the  same  eternal  vigilance,  which  is  the  price  of 
liberty,  must  be  exercised  in  the  interest  of  the  tax- 
payer, and  of  political  morality.  An  universal  Tam- 
many Hall  is  not  an  ideal  of  democracy;  even  if  it 
masquerades  under  the  honest  overalls  of  labor. 

Our  universities  also  seem  to  me  full  of  the 
propaganda  of  Organized  Labor,  mingled  with  col- 
lectivism; here  at  Harvard,  for  instance.  I  am  my- 
self a  Harvard  man;  and  believe  in  the  intellectual 
independence  of  the  professor,  up  to  the  point  of 
constitutional  right  or  wrong  —  when  he  should  back 
his  country,  or  get  out  of  it.  A  very  sincere  and 
honest  group  of  professors  at  Harvard  and  Colum- 
bia seem  to  love  the  wide  collectivism  of  Organized 
Labor;  without  the  least  conception  of  the  impos- 
sibilities involved,  and  as  far  as  my  reading  shows, 
without  at  all  studying  or  realizing  the  minus  results 
achieved.  I  doubt  whether  any  one  of  them  ever 
created  or  financed  an  industry,  or  employed  even 
so  few  as  an  hundred  men;  or  ever  tried  to  coax  the 
necessary  but  unwilling  dollars  from  the  bank  ac- 
count of  the  hungry  capitalist,  so  eager  to  grab  every- 
thing in  sight,  and  exploit  the  workingman;  or  ever 
stood  between  the  devil  and  the  deep  sea  of  trades- 
unionism  and  sales  competition;  or  ever  gambled 
on  the  crops  or  politics  or  change  of  fashion,  or  other 
blind  factors  in  supply  and  demand.  Fortunately 
for  themselves,  their  universities  rest  upon  the  sure 
foundation  of  the  endowments  given  by  men  who 

[195] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

have  successfully  done  all  these  things;  and  their 
salaries,  though  none  too  large,  are  secure.  They 
do  not  have  to  worry  about  markets  or  how  to  meet 
the  next  pay  roll ;  or  whether  perhaps  they  can  secure 
workmen  for  wages  at  all.  They  can  let  such  details 
be  taken  care  of  by  the  poor  devils  who  are  "landed" 
with  them;  and  can  themselves  loftily  think  in  col- 
lectivities. But  their  moral  and  intellectual  support 
of  the  impracticable  and  the  unjust  is  pretty  hard  on 
the  men  to  whom  their  great  educational  institutions, 
all  of  them,  appeal  for  cash.  It  is  to  me  a  strange 
and  curious  thing  that  they  should  so  little  appreciate 
the  enormous  usefulness  to  the  community  of  even 
the  most  selfish  bourgeoisie.  My  own  rather  irrev- 
erent conviction  is  that  the  Lord  created  the  bour- 
geoisie, because  in  His  infinite  wisdom  he  found 
that  the  best  way  to  ensure  the  creation  and  storing 
of  capital  for  the  world }  just  as  he  created  the  bees 
to  make  and  store  honey.  Of  course,  Mr.  Gompers 
does  not  see  it  that  way. 


[196] 


CHAPTER   XXVI 

PROFITEERING 

ON  the  principle  of  lucus  a  non  lucendo  I  go  out  of 
my  way  to  say  a  few  words  about  "Profiteering"; 
because  it  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  Labor 
question,  except  in  so  far  as  Labor  profiteers ;  which 
to  be  sure  is  something  not  to  be  despised.  I  refer 
rather  to  that  part  of  the  alleged  crime  of  profiteer- 
ing chargeable  to  Capital,  and  go  into  it  because  it 
forms  an  essential  item  of  the  stock  in  trade  of  every 
labor  (and  other)  demagogue  that  orates  nowadays. 
It  is  trotted  out  particularly  to  hide  Labor's  share  in 
causing  high  cost  of  living,  as  a  smoke  screen  is 
thrown  out  in  modern  sea  fighting  by  warships  to 
conceal  their  own  place  and  movement. 

"  Profiteering,"  while  unpleasant  to  those  who  pay 
high  prices,  is  a  perfectly  normal  manifestation  of 
the  free  play  of  the  law  of  supply  and  demand;  and 
is  its  own  quickest  cure.  For  it  must  never  be  for- 
gotten that  nothing  does  away  with  high  price  except 
abundant  supply;  and  that  nothing  stimulates  pro- 
duction of  abundant  supply  like  high  price  and  large 
profit.  The  very  first  essential  to  production  is 
capital;  and  capital  turns  first  to  that  field  where  the 
largest  return  offers,  and  away  from  the  lower  return. 

For  instance,  the  present  crusade  and  legislation 
against  rent  profiteering  seems  to  me  the  stupidest, 
most  short-sighted  piece  of  selfishness  imaginable, 
though  I  am  myself  a  renter.  Rents  have  nowhere 
near  doubled,  though  everything  else  has.  The  land- 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

lord's  income  from  rents  buys  only  half  what  it  used 
to  buy,  and  naturally  he  wishes  to  do  as  others  have 
done :  increase  the  price  of  what  he  has  to  sell  enough 
to  put  him  on  the  same  plane  of  living  relative  to 
others  that  he  formerly  occupied.  The  law  says 
No;  you  shall  take  twenty-five  per  cent  more  than  of 
old,  and  no  more  —  at  least  around  Boston. 

What  is  the  result?  There  is  great  shortage  of 
housing  and  storage.  No  building  has  been  done 
for  several  years  on  account  of  the  high  cost  of  labor 
and  building  materials.  That  is  why  tenants  who 
must  have  space  bid  up  on  each  other  and  rents  go 
up.  If  the  landlord  could  advance  rents  enough  to 
get  a  good  return  on  the  necessarily  high  cost  of  new 
buildings  he  would  find  the  capital  and  build  them. 
But  will  he  try  to  do  so  —  knowing  that  he  cannot 
get  a  decent  return  now,  for  the  current  years  when 
shortage  is  sure  to  fill  every  room  he  can  provide; 
and  with  the  certainty  that  a  few  years  hence,  when 
the  cost  of  building  falls  and  permits  the  competition 
of  newer  and  cheaper  buildings,  he  cannot  get  a 
decent  return  on  his  high-cost  structures  then? 

Once  more,  the  only  sufficient  answer  is  the  slang, 
u  Not  on  your  life."  There  will  be  no  relief  from 
the  present  congestion  of  housing  conditions  so  long 
as  the  law  penalizes  the  man  who  would  build ! 

Or,  consider  a  prosecution  commenced  in  Boston, 
May  25,  against  one  of  the  pet  targets  of  Attorney 
General  Palmer  (candidate  for  the  Democratic 
nomination  for  the  Presidency),  to  wit,  the  packer 
firm  of  Armour  and  Company;  haled  before  the 
United  States  Commissioner,  for  importing  a  cargo 
of  lamb  carcasses  from  New  Zealand,  and  selling 
them  at  a  profit.  Lambs  (domestic)  were  selling  in 
Boston  at  30  to  34  cents  a  pound;  so  Armour  took 
the  risk  of  buying  a  shipload  in  New  Zealand,  and 

[198] 


PROFITEERING 

bringing  it  refrigerated  to  New  York  and  Boston, 
and  offering  it  there  for  sale  at  24  to  25  cents.  It 
was  of  finer  quality  than  the  domestic  lamb  and  sold 
readily  at  the  cut  in  price.  The  evidence  showed 
that  the  Chicago  packer  firm  of  Cudahy  was  obliged 
to  meet  the  cut  and  sell  domestic  lamb  at  25  cents. 
The  Attorney  General  now  prosecutes  Armour  and 
Company,  because  the  lamb  cost  them  in  New 
Zealand  about  13^  cents;  and  Armour  therefore 
"profiteered." 

Under  the  Lever  law  that  firm  may  indeed  be 
found  guilty;  but  it  is  a  safe  bet  that  it  will  never 
try  again  to  help  the  consumers  in  New  York  and 
Boston  to  get  good  lamb,  one  fourth  cheaper  than 
they  can  buy  it  at  home,  by  importation  from  abroad. 
That  kind  of  crime  is  profitable  to  the  public  and  to 
the  packer,  —  too  profitable  to  both  to  be  permitted 
to  last;  it  is  time  for  the  politician  to  divert  some  of 
the  profit  in  his  own  direction.  Hence  the  Attorney 
General  and  the  prosecution. 

Consider  also  the  prosecution  just  begun  of  the 
American  Woolen  Company  and  its  President,  Wil- 
liam M.  Wood.  The  company  has  undoubtedly 
made  extraordinary  profits,  as  have  all  our  producers 
of  standard  food,  clothing  material,  or  other  neces- 
saries of  life;  because  the  world  supply  was  short 
and  there  were  foreign  as  well  as  domestic  buyers 
for  everything  the  American  factories  could  produce, 
at  prices  beyond  all  forecast.  The  stimulus  to  pro- 
duction was  huge,  and  the  response  instantaneous; 
the  result  shows  today  already  in  signs  of  over- 
production and  falling  off  of  demand  all  along  the 
line  of  American  industry.  Meantime,  for  a  year  or 
two  the  manufacturers  have  been  extraordinarily 
prosperous.  Now  comes  the  Attorney  General,  and 
says  that  under  the  Lever  law  it  was  a  crime  to  recog- 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

nize  world  prices;  that  if  a  manufacturer  asks  of  an 
American  as  much  as  a  foreigner  will  pay  him  for  his 
goods,  he  is  a  profiteer.  If  he  has  to  buy  his  wools 
abroad  he  must  pay  foreign  prices,  true  enough ;  but 
he  must  not  sell  his  cloth  at  them,  taking  rather  what 
the  American  is  willing  to  pay. 

The  case  is  not  parallel  to  the  building  industry, 
in  that  the  construction  of  new  mills  was  stimulated 
early  enough  to  take  place  before  the  Lever  law, 
for  the  most  part;  and  the  mills  were  built,  and  are 
in  existence,  at  work  turning  out  goods,  though  not 
quite  so  fast  as  before.  The  prosecution  of  Mr. 
Wood  will  not  stop  them;  as  the  rent  prosecutions 
will  stop  building  operations.  But  it  is  none  the  less 
stupid  demagogy,  it  seems  to  me.  It  is,  of  course, 
sympathetic  to  Organized  Labor;  whose  action  here 
turns  the  spot-light  on  its  political  methods.  Mr. 
Wood  is  popular  with  his  employees  at  Lawrence,  be- 
cause among  other  things  he  has  started  a  coopera- 
tive store  for  their  benefit;  so  they  got  up  last  week 
a  public  demonstration  of  confidence  in  him,  when 
his  prosecution  was  announced,  in  which  several 
thousand  of  them  took  part.  The  Amalgamated 
Textile  Workers'  Lawrence  Local  Union  promptly 
came  back  at  him  with  a  telegram  to  Attorney  Gen- 
eral Palmer  as  follows :  "  Millionaire  Wood  con- 
temptuous of  law.  Preparing  public  opinion  to 
whitewash  profiteers.  Ten  thousand  organized 
operatives  demand  that  government  shall  carry 
through  the  prosecution  of  Wood  and  all  other 
profiteers,  and  that  he  be  compelled  to  give  the 
working  people  the  government  standard  of  $45 
wages  per  week  as  a  minimum,  and  also  be  com- 
pelled to  reduce  the  hours  of  labor  so  as  to  prevent 
unemployment." 

There  is  a  very  perfect  bit  of  labor  economics; 
[200] 


PROFITEERING 

that  burns  the  merry  candle  of  capital  at  both  ends 
and  in  the  middle !  Doubtless  it  will  score  a  bull's- 
eye  with  Mr.  Palmer;  who  has  simply  got  to  reduce 
the  high  cost  of  living  before  election  day,  whether  as 
a  candidate,  or  merely  as  a  Democrat.  But  it  is  safe 
to  predict  that  prosecuting  Mr.  Wood  will  not  bring 
more  woolen  goods  into  the  world  markets:  nor  re- 
duce the  cost  of- clothing,  nor  increase  the  wages  of 
the  Textile  Workers'  Union,  by  one  penny;  nor  tend 
to  stabilize  the  business  situation  that  hangs  over 
us  all. 

To  return  to  our  sheep — perhaps  I  should  say  our 
lambs  —  let  me  beg  you,  gentlemen  of  the  press,  not 
to  let  Labor  camouflage  its  own  war  on  the  Amer- 
ican public  by  charging  the  American  capitalist  with 
high  levels  of  prices  and  cost  of  living,  that  are  sub- 
stantially the  same,  where  lack  of  transportation 
does  not  disturb  them,  throughout  the  civilized 
world.  President  Wilson  says  we  cannot  isolate 
ourselves  politically,  which  is  true;  still  more  true  is 
it  that  we  cannot  isolate  ourselves  commercially. 


[201] 


CHAPTER   XXVII 

THE    EIGHT-HOUR   AND    SHORTER    WORK    DAY 

THERE  is  no  more  instructive  reading  on  the  phi- 
losophy of  Labor  than  the  oft-quoted  Report  of  the 
A.  F.L.  for  1919,  pages  72,  145,  241,449,452-454 
inclusive,  on  the  subject  of  the  Shorter  Work  Day. 

Perhaps  Mr.  Gompers'  greatest  achievement,  next 
to  the  size  of  the  A.  F.  L.  and  its  control,  is  the 
progress  made  toward  establishing  the  eight-hour 
day;  which  is  becoming  common,  though  not  uni- 
versal by  any  means.  The  report  discloses  formal 
indorsement  by  the  Federation  of  any  movement 
inaugurated  by  any  affiliated  body  toward  a  still 
shorter  day,  for  instance  six  hours ;  or  for  a  shorter 
week,  with  a  half  holiday  on  Saturdays,  making  a 
forty-four  hour  week  at  eight  hours  a  day;  of  course, 
without  reduction  of  pay,  i.e.,  "wages  so  adjusted 
that  the  earnings  of  labor  will  buy  the  same  amount 
of  the  necessities  of  life."  The  committee  recom- 
mended and  the  Convention  adopted  the  following: 
"  That  the  Executive  Committee  lend  its  assistance 
to  any  organization  seeking  to  establish  a  shorter 
work  day  that  will  provide  for  the  employment  of 
all  its  members,"  —  the  organization  to  be  the  judge ; 
and  when  it  has  determined  the  "  shorter  hours,  no 
matter  what  they  may  be,  the  A.  F.  L.  shall  lend  its 
fullest  assistance."  During  the  debate  the  prob- 
ability of  slack  trade  and  unemployment  was  fore- 
casted by  several  speakers;  and  Mr.  Green,  of  the 

[202  ] 


THE   SHORTER   DAY 

United  Mine  Workers,  said  it  was  "  the  very  serious 
purpose  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  to  press  for  a 
further  shortening  of  the  hours  of  labor  which  we 
now  have,  in  order  to  furnish  employment  to  the 
thousands  of  mine  workers  in  the  industry."  Mr. 
Green  had  previously  called  attention  to  the  war 
results  of  the  industry;  after  losing  100,000  workers 
demanded  by  the  war,  yet  it  increased  output  be- 
yond any  figure  hitherto  thought  of.  Mr.  Tracy 
favored  a  campaign  of  education  for  the  shorter 
work  day,  among  members ;  referring  to  "  overtime 
hogs  "  who  had  no  concern  in  the  organization  other 
than  the  amount  of  money  in  their  pay  envelopes. 

The  instructive  feature  of  the  debate  and  the 
resolutions  is  the  prevalence  in  the  minds  of  the  labor 
leaders  of  the  old  false,  laborer's  notion,  that  there 
is  only  so  much  work  to  go  around;  and  if  there  are 
more  men  than  needed  to  do  it,  it  must  still  be  split 
up  among  them  all,  each  man  doing  less,  in  order  to 
keep  them  all  employed;  of  course  at  full  wages. 
The  fallacy  of  thinking  that  when  there  are  already 
too  many  men  for  the  work,  it  will  help  things  to 
put  on  more ;  that  either  the  world  or  the  men  them- 
selves can  possibly  benefit  by  loading  the  product 
with  useless  labor,  —  or  rather  with  the  cost  of 
wasted  time,  —  has  always  stuck  in  the  heads  of  the 
labor  leaders,  especially  Mr.  Gompers  —  who  has 
several  times  laid  down  the  law  on  this  point.  This 
debate  took  place  on  Resolution  No.  160,  which 
read  in  part  as  follows : 

"  Whereas  tremendous  changes  have  taken  place  in  the 
industries  of  this  country  and  the  world,  due  to  the  introduc- 
tion of  new  machinery  and  methods  of  efficiency ;  and  produc- 
tion of  commodities  has  increased  to  a  great  degree ;  therefore 

"  Resolved,  that  the  A.  F.  L.  .  .  .  conduct  a  campaign 
...  to  establish  the  Universal  Six-Hour  Day,"  etc. 

[203] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

Now,  the  whole  history  of  trade  and  industry 
demonstrates  nothing  more  broadly,  than  the  fact 
that,  whenever  production  overtakes  and  exceeds  de- 
mand in  any  industry,  capital  seeks  new  employment 
in  diversification  and  creation  of  new  products  and 
markets  therefor;  absorbing  in  the  process  the  idle 
labor  released  as  surplus  from  the  older  industries 
which  can  no  longer  expand.  Of  course  such  diversi- 
fication is  an  affair  quite  beyond  the  vision  or  concern 
of  labor;  which  is  content  to  reap  the  benefits  in  due 
season.  The  most  discouraging  thing  to  the  student 
of  Organized  Labor,  who  like  myself  has  believed 
in  its  educational  possibilities,  is  the  denseness  — 
real  or  feigned  —  of  leaders  like  Mr.  Gompers,  in 
grasping  such  elementary  facts  of  history  and  eco- 
nomics, although  vital  to  labor.  I  cannot  see  that  it 
would  in  the  least  cripple  him,  whether  as  honest 
steersman  of  his  followers,  or  as  demagogue,  to 
avoid  smashing  his  Federation  against  the  stone  wall 
of  economic  law. 

However  that  may  be,  there  is  no  reason  why 
you  should  not  see  straight,  gentlemen  of  the  press. 

It  is  evident  that  our  Daylight  Saving  Laws,  which 
are  further  attempts  of  legislation  to  interfere  with 
nature,  and  standardize  local  conditions,  are  not  en- 
tirely successful.  The  farmers  are  in  arms  against 
the  cities  by  reason  of  them;  and  the  worst  of  it  is, 
that  there  is  likely  to  be  an  exceedingly  dangerous 
reaction,  and  a  most  unexpected  one,  upon  the  vol- 
ume of  our  crops.  The  papers  are  filled  with  dire 
forebodings,  probably  exaggerated,  yet  not  hastily 
to  be  dismissed  from  mind. 

In  this  connection  the  eight-hour  day  is  playing  a 
wretched  part;  and  it  is  evident  that  when  the  Presi- 
dent announced  the  "sanction  of  society"  for  the 
eight-hour  day,  he  had  in  mind  only  our  Cambridge 

[204] 


THE   SHORTER   DAY 

sociologists  and  their  like,  shutting  out  the  farmers 
at  least  from  that  polite  collectivity.  Nor  are  the 
farmers  alone  in  thinking  that  an  eight-hour  day  is 
too  short;  I  incline  to  judge,  from  the  A.  F.  L.  Re- 
port as  well  as  general  knowledge,  that  the  great 
bulk  of  daily  work  in  two  or  three  hundred  thousand 
large  and  small  shops,  in  retail  stores,  and  domestic 
service,  is  still  done  on  a  nine-hour  or  longer  schedule. 
Of  course,  the  "  eight  hours  for  work,  eight  for  play 
and  eight  for  sleep,"  sounds  symmetrical  and  entic- 
ing; and  nobody  wants  anybody  to  work  a  minute 
longer  than  necessary.  The  serious  question  is,  "/J 
eight  hours  enough  to  do  the  world's  work,  and  keep 
us  all  alive  and  prosperous  as  we  have  been  on  longer 
hours?  "  I  think  you  will  agree  with  me,  gentlemen, 
that  there  is  no  way  to  find  out,  but  to  try;  in  each 
industry  for  itself  and  by  itself,  not  tied  by  Federa- 
tions of  Labor  and  Houses  of  Politics  into  hard 
knots  with  other  totally  unrelated  industries.  You 
can't  work  a  jackass  and  a  motor  car  very  well  in 
double  harness,  for  instance. 

The  blast  furnace  must  work  twenty-four  hours  a 
day,  the  morning  paper  must  be  printed  at  night,  the 
housemaid  must  get  up  before  breakfast  and  stay  up 
after  supper,  the  street  car  must  run  often  or  not 
according  to  volume  of  traffic  from  hour  to  hour. 
The  city  firemen  can  work,  or  rather  wait  for  fire 
alarms,  twelve  hours  a  day,  easily;  the  stoker  in 
front  of  a  hot  furnace  can  stand  it  perhaps  for  four 
hours  twice  a  day;  and  so  on  through  an  infinite 
variety  of  demand  on  mind  and  muscle.  Human  life 
must  go  on;  and  its  requirements  in  human  service 
must  be  met  and  paid  for  on  such  conditions  and  at 
such  rate  as  will  fetch  the  needed  labor.  That  is  the 
only  criterion  of  work  and  wages;  subject  of  course 
to  reasonable  veto  by  the  state  of  conditions  prejudi- 

[205] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

cial  to  the  health  and  future  of  the  race.  There  is 
but  one  way  out;  and  that  is  not  to  attempt  the 
standardization  of  unstandardizable  employments, 
but  to  leave  employer  and  employee  absolutely  free, 
in  the  old  and  natural  way,  that  has  worked  out  the 
immense  progress  of  the  race,  to  hire  and  be  hired, 
if  and  when  they  can  agree  together. 

Meantime,  per  capita  productive  power  tends  al- 
ways to  increase  in  future  as  in  the  past,  and  hours 
of  labor  tend  always  to  decrease  in  future  as  in  the 
past,  —  that  is  to  say,  in  any  given  industry,  as  out- 
put overruns  demand  by  virtue  of  greater  efficiency 
in  production.  But  the  eight-hour  day  is  new,  while 
the  world  is  thousands  of  years  old;  and  constantly 
has  the  race  progressed  in  numbers  and  in  welfare, 
with  a  far  longer  working  day.  A  shorter  day  is 
evidently  not  necessary  for  human  welfare;  and  it 
remains  to  be  proved  whether  even  an  eight-hour 
day  will  sustain  the  world  in  present  ease  and  com- 
fort, especially  after  a  few  centuries,  when  coal  and 
oil  give  out.  However,  they  will  last  our  time. 
After  us  the  Deluge ! 

Meantime  I  submit  that  greater  diversification  of 
industry,  more  necessaries  and  luxuries  of  life, 
higher  standards  of  living,  are  worth  more  to  all 
of  us  than  an  hour  or  two  more  to  loaf  every  day. 
Certainly,  nine  men  out  of  ten  are  better  off  and 
happier  at  work  than  when  idle,  up  to  the  point  of 
healthful  fatigue.  I  never  happened  to  know  a  man 
who  had  done  anything  extraordinary,  in  so  little 
time  as  eight  hours  a  day,  average  work.  Mr. 
Gompers  himself  says  he  works  sixteen  hours,  and 
I  believe  him !  The  Federation  should  expel  him  as 
a  "scab";  or  rather  as  an  "overtime  hog." 


[206] 


CHAPTER   XXVIII 

SUCCESSFUL    COOPERATION 

MOST  fortunately  and  auspiciously  for  American 
industry  and  politics,  the  honesty  and  sound  sense 
of  American  Labor  has  already  begun  to  show  itself 
in  practical  cooperation  with  Capital,  foreshadow- 
ing the  radical  change  in  temper  and  purpose  of 
trades-unionism,  which  I  have  hoped  to  expedite  by 
the  teachings  of  this  book.  Two  most  interesting, 
significant,  and  successful  examples  of  cooperation 
have  recently  been  made  public:  those  of  the  gar- 
ment workers  and  their  employer  in  Cleveland; 
and  of  the  street  railwaymen  and  the  Philadelphia 
Rapid  Transit  Company.  The  latter  is  the  older, 
formally  inaugurated  in  1911.  It  is  the  remarkable 
achievement  of  President  Thomas  E.  Mitten,  the 
most  successful  street  railway  manager  in  all  the 
world,  apparently.  I  quote  from  the  Boston  Herald 
of  August  22,  1920,  as  follows: 

"  There  was  a  man  in  Chicago,  at  the  head  of  the  City 
Railways  Company,  who  had  achieved  a  high  reputation  there 
and  in  other  large  cities.  So  Thomas  E.  Mitten  was  called 
to  Philadelphia.  He  took  hold  as  chairman  of  the  company's 
executive  committee  under  E.  T.  Stotesbury  as  president;  in 
1914  Mr.  Mitten  was  made  president.  Mr.  Stotesbury  is  the 
Philadelphia  representative  of  the  house  of  Morgan  &  Co.; 
the  present  regime  has  been  known  from  the  start  as  the 
Stotesbury-Mitten  management. 

"  Mr.  Mitten  began  by  meeting  his  men  on  a  get-together 
basis  so  friendly,  so  frank,  so  democratic,  as  immediately  to 

[207] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

win  them  over  —  at  once  forming  a  relationship  so  intimate 
that  the  attitude  of  mutual  trust  was  soon  so  strongly  ce- 
mented as  tQ  grow  steadily  firmer  to  this  day.  One  of  the 
first  things  done,  with  the  help  of  Mr.  Stotesbury,  was  to  take 
the  company  out  of  politics.  At  that  time  Philadelphia  poli- 
tics had  lost  little  of  its  old-time  savor  as  a  particularly  rotten 
mess.  The  P.  R.  T.  was  thus  relieved  of  one  of  its  worst 
loads  and  its  men  were  set  free  to  vote  as  they  pleased. 

"  The  new  management  took  hold  in  1910 ;  the  cooperative 
plan  has  been  steadily  developing  from  then  to  now,  even 
augmented  by  desirable  new  features.  The  original  coopera- 
tive plan  was  presented  to  the  unions  in  1911,  resulting  in  a 
signed  agreement  to  abide  by  the  action  taken.  A  recogni- 
tion of  collective  bargaining  was  a  basic  principle.  At  that 
time  trainmen  received  a  maximum  of  23  cents  an  hour ;  the 
rate  is  now  61  cents;  in  the  near  future,  as  agreed,  it  will  be 
72^2  cents.  With  higher  wages  has  come  a  steadily  improved 
morale.  In  return,  the  company  has  received  what  an  official 
well  terms  a  '  super-service '  so  loyal  that,  while  the  company 
in  1910  was  carrying  445  millions  of  passengers  at  an  average 
fare  of  4.13  cents,  in  1919  it  carried  850  million  at  an  aver- 
age fare  of  less  than  four  cents.  And  yet  in  1919  these  were 
carried  by  fewer  trainmen  than  in  1910.  Almost  doubling 
the  number  of  passengers  and  reducing  the  average  fare! 
This  measures  the  development  of  the  riding-habit.  In  1910 
the  city's  population  averaged  288  rides  per  capita;  in  1919, 
over  400. 

"  Up  to  1913  wages  were  paid  out  of  a  fund  of  22  per  cent. 
Then,  with  changed  conditions  this  proved  inadequate.  For 
two  years,  more  was  paid  than  the  fund  produced.  The  new 
scale  is  based  on  the  average  of  the  maximum  rates  in  the  four 
cities:  Chicago,  Milwaukee,  Cleveland,  and  Buffalo.  The 
latest  rate,  T2l/2  cents,  is  as  of  May  16,  June  I,  1920,  and  is 
retroactive ;  pending  a  discussion  with  the  city  authorities  and 
the  public  service  commission,  it  was  agreed  that  the  increase 
should  not  take  effect  until  a  decision  had  been  reached.  Of 
this  unanimous  vote  by  delegated  representatives  to  await  the 
increase  of  revenue  looked  for  President  Mitten  said  that  a 
cooperative  effort  of  men  and  management  to  work  to  a 
mutual  purpose  had  here  been  given  a  new  meaning  in  sustain- 

[208] 


SUCCESSFUL   COOPERATION 

ing  the  policy  to  give  the  best  possible  service  at  the  lowest 
rates  of  fare ;  to  pay  the  highest  wages  equal  to  the  average 
in  other  cities  of  like  conditions,  and  to  protect  properly  the 
equities  of  stockholders.  From  the  men  at  large  came  this 
sentiment: 

" '  We  will  stand  back  of  President  Mitten  to  a  man  in 
anything  he  does  in  connection  with  the  management  of  the 
P.  R.  T.,  knowing  full  well  from  past  experience  that  our 
cause  is  in  good  hands;  and  we  approve  this  action  of  our 
representatives  with  three  hearty  cheers  and  best  wishes  for 
his  success  in  all  his  undertakings.' 

"  The  organization  established  jointly  by  management  and 
men  to  carry  out  this  policy  is  The  Cooperative  Welfare  As- 
sociation, with  a  membership  of  nearly  100  per  cent.  Mem- 
bership costs  the  men  $i  a  month ;  the  company  contributes  a 
like  amount  by  agreement  and  has  lately  doubled  its  payment, 
making  the  total  receipts  about  $300,000  a  year.  One  feature 
is  a  savings  fund  of  over  $800,000  a  year.  This  shows  that 
about  10,000  employees  are  earning  more  than  a  living  wage. 

"  A  principle  of  the  management  is  to  see  that  ambition  is 
duly  rewarded  by  assuring  promotion  to  those  who  fit  them- 
selves for  it.  A  policy  is  to  maintain  the  '  open  shop.'  The 
aim  of  increased  production  to  meet  higher  wage-cost  has  been 
accomplished  in  a  most  remarkable  way :  an  increased  produc- 
tion of  1 20  per  cent  as  compared  with  a  higher  wage-rate  of 
151  per  cent  since  1910  is  robbing  the  high  cost  of  living  of 
its  terror. 

"  Representatives  of  the  wage-earners  are  elected  by  secret 
ballot  to  form  an  assembly  containing  also  direct  representa- 
tives of  the  company  for  discussing  and  determining  every 
matter  of  interest  to  the  employee  in  their  relations  with  their 
employer.  This  form  of  cooperation  has  had  a  test  of  about 
nine  years.  The  controlling  thought  of  the  management  is 
that  with  and  through  the  men  themselves  the  condition  of 
employment  and  well-being  should  be  improved.  It  is  held 
that  the  degree  of  participation  in  the  management  to  which 
the  men  themselves  may  aspire  is  yet  unknown ;  it  must  de- 
pend upon  the  success  which  follows  a  more  intelligent  han- 
dling of  present  duties  and  the  efficient  handling  of  their 
domestic  affairs  on  a  business  basis." 

[209] 


LABOR    IN   POLITICS 

The  Boston  Herald  also  quotes  President  Mitten 

of   the   Philadelphia    Rapid   Transit   Company   as 

f  11  *•      j 

follows : 

"  The  keystone  of  all  success  as  between  men  and  manage- 
ment is  confidence.  .  .  .  The  confidence  of  the  men  in  the 
management,  and  likewise  the  confidence  of  the  management 
in  the  men,  is  what  makes  Philadelphia  stand  out  in  ac- 
complishment." 

The  Cleveland  example  is  not  so  far  advanced 
in  showing  financial  results  —  it  is  not  yet  old 
enough.  But  two  men,  Messrs.  Morris  A.  Black, 
a  Harvard  graduate,  president  of  the  Employ- 
ers' Association,  and  Meyer  Perlstein,  a  Russian 
Jew,  general  manager  of  the  International  Ladies' 
Garment  Workers'  Union  in  Cleveland,  after  fight- 
ing for  several  years,  got  together  during  the  war 
—  in  1917  or  1918,  I  suppose  —  for  cooperation 
and  maximum  production,  with  of  course  maximum 
wages  and  best  conditions.  The  two  sides  jointly 
employ  efficiency  engineers  to  determine  maximum 
scales  of  output,  consistent  with  health  and  reason- 
able recreation,  standard  conditions,  and  wages 
proportionate  to  results.  Provision  is  made  for  ad- 
justment of  controversies  within  the  shop  if  pos- 
sible; if  not,  then  within  the  joint  board  of  the 
associated  shops;  if  not  even  there,  then  by  outside 
arbitration.  But  the  point  is,  not  to  strike  or  in- 
terrupt output;  "the  parties  talk  of  work  first  and 
disputes  second,"  says  Mr.  Samuel  Crowther,  who 
writes  of  this  experiment  in  The  World's  Work. 
He  quotes  Mr.  Perlstein  as  follows: 

"When  I  first  came  to  Cleveland  and  for  a  couple  of 
years  afterward  my  inclination  was  to  be  radical,  to  advocate 
the  absolute  ownership  of  industry  by  the  workers,  and  to 
strike  just  to  weaken  the  employers.  Ownership  by  the  work- 

[210] 


SUCCESSFUL   COOPERATION 

ers  is  a  part  of  the  preamble  to  the  constitution  of  the  Inter- 
national Ladies'  Garment  Workers'  Union.  I  had  a  leaning 
toward  industrial  warfare  for  itself  —  that  is,  to  break  down 
capitalistic  control. 

"  Now  I  have  changed  my  mind.  I  recognize  that  there 
are  three  parties  to  industry,  and  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  if 
a  labor  union  can  cooperate  with  intelligent  employers  in 
such  a  way  as  to  increase  production  and  the  two  can  get 
together  to  stop  seasonal  work  and  at  the  same  time  give  a 
proper  service  to  the  public,  then  the  wages  of  the  workers 
will  be  higher  and  the  public  will  get  better  goods  at  lower 
prices  than  if  the  workers  alone  own  the  establishment.  I 
think  that  when  we  get  properly  together  we  can  all  get  what 
we  want,  not  out  of  each  other's  pockets  but  out  of  the  big- 
gest profiteer  of  all  —  that  is,  waste. 

"  In  the  garment  trade,  and  I  think  it  is  the  same  in  every 
other  trade,  there  is  enough  waste  of  time,  motion,  and  mate- 
rial through  bad  manufacturing  methods  and  through  an  over- 
emphasis on  seasonal  work  to  allow,  if  cut  out,  the  employers 
a  reasonable  profit,  the  workers  a  reasonable  wage,  and  the 
public  goods  at  a  low  price. 

"  I  used  to  think,  with  many  other  union  men,  that  there 
was  only  so  much  work  to  be  done  and  that  the  way  to  give 
employment  was  to  spread  out  this  work  so  that  every  one 
might  have  a  job.  I  no  longer  think  this.  If  an  employer 
tries  to  get  high  production,  paying  low  wages,  and  then  shut- 
ting down  his  plant  and  holding  goods  for  a  high  price,  then 
the  proper  reply  of  the  worker  is  to  limit  production;  but  if 
the  employer  comprehends  good  business  methods,  and  gives 
both  the  public  and  the  worker  the  benefit  of  the  increased 
production  brought  about  by  higher  wages  and  lower  prices, 
—  which  is  always  possible,  —  then,  and  only  then  is  it  the 
duty  of  the  worker  to  cooperate.  That  is  the  basis  we  have 
reached  here  in  Cleveland,  and  I  think  we  reached  it  before 
any  one  else  did." 

You  can  value  the  significance  of  these  new  depart- 
ures in  relations  between  Labor  and  Capital  for  your- 
selves, gentlemen  of  the  press,  without  further  com- 
ment from  me.  Between  them,  Mr.  Mitten  and  Mr. 

[211] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

Perlstein  pretty  completely  cover  the  field  of  reme- 
dies for  labor  unrest. 

Before  closing  this  chapter  it  is  worth  while  to 
quote  Mr.  Perlstein  once  more,  as  a  sidelight  upon 
old-style  labor  methods,  and  by  way  of  contrast  to 
the  foregoing. 

"  When  I  got  here  in  1914  there  was  no  local  organization 
and  not  more  than  twenty-five  or  thirty  people  in  the  city 
with  union  cards,  and  they  were  afraid  to  show  them.  Just 
as  soon  as  the  bosses  learned  who  I  was,  any  workmen  seen 
talking  to  me  were  fired.  They  threw  me  out  of  every  shop 
I  went  into.  I  called  a  strike  wherever  I  could  but  the  men 
seldom  came  out.  These  strikes  were  not  about  anything  in 
particular,  but  organization  strikes  —  that  is,  if  you  can  get 
a  certain  number  of  people  in  a  shop  to  walk  out  and  then 
have  them  picket  the  shop,  a  number  of  others  will  be  afraid 
to  go  to  work  and  you  can  get  them  for  union  members.  The 
strike  is  a  part  of  organization  work.  It  is  the  most  expen- 
sive but  also  the  most  effective  way  to  get  results." 


[212] 


CHAPTER   XXIX 

SUMMARY  OF    FACTS   AND    CONCLUSIONS 

I  NOW  come  to  the  hardest  part  of  my  task;  so  to 
state  my  conclusions  as  to  carry  your  convictions, 
gentlemen,  along  with  my  own.  The  latter  are  so 
decided  that  I  fear  the  reaction  of  their  emphasis 
against  my  own  arguments.  Let  me  take  off  my  hat 
for  the  thousandth  time  to  Governor  Coolidge, 
whose  masterly  address  to  the  visiting  members  of 
the  National  Editorial  Association  at  Boston  last 
night  (the  evening  of  Decoration  Day)  will  I  hope 
be  read  by  every  newspaper  man  in  America.  Its 
few  columns  are  worth  a  dozen  books  like  this,  as 
true  inspiration  to  you  men  of  the  press  to  do  your 
duty  by  the  country  always,  and  especially  in  the 
matters  of  which  I  write.  Would  that  I  had  a  little 
of  his  positive  genius  for  hitting  the  nail  on  the  head 
in  two  words.  Bear  with  me,  please,  if  too  prolix. 

In  treating  of  Organized  Labor,  more  particu- 
larly of  Mr.  Gompers,  I  would  not  join  what  a 
certain  lurid,  hyphen-haunted  scribe  might  call  the 
Tarbell-and-feather-Rockefeller-school  of  history.  I 
feel  myself  an  amateur  in  this  behalf  compared  to 
that  first  of  all  professionals,  Samuel  the  prophet 
(to  some  extent  the  profiteer)  of  Labor;  and  I  have 
not  the  cocksure  confidence  in  the  amateur  as  against 
the  professional,  that  was  voiced  on  a  now  historic 
occasion,  not  so  long  ago,  by  the  first  of  living 
amateurs,  in  perhaps  his  profoundest  bit  of  self- 
revelation.  Let  me  therefore  deprecate  my  drastic 

[213] 


LABOR   IN    POLITICS 

convictions,  even  if  I  cannot  shake  them.  Here 
they  are,  briefly  summarized: 

Though  I  may  save  my  money,  build  a  factory, 
and  offer  work  and  wages  to  attract  labor  to  my 
project,  I  do  not  admit  any  intention,  and  in  fact  do 
not  "struggle,"  to  "oppress"  or  "exploit"  any 
laboring  man;  but  on  the  contrary  my  offer,  whether 
he  accepts  or  refuses  it,  is  a  distinctly  friendly  and 
beneficial  act  toward  him,  although  I  am  doing  it 
for  my  own  sake  and  not  for  his. 

Mr.  Gompers'  appeal  to  my  laborers  to  organize 
for  a  class  struggle  with  me  is  therefore  based  on  a 
German  lie;  the  motives  of  class  hatred,  selfishness, 
and  sloth,  which  he  stimulates,  are  thoroughly  evil; 
the  purposes  he  formulates  of  monopoly,  extortion, 
and  denial  of  the  rights  of  others,  are  entirely  bad; 
the  methods  he  uses,  of  combination  to  coerce  the 
employer,  or  the  public,  or  both,  by  means  other 
than  peacefully  quitting  work  (the  legitimacy  of 
which  is  generally  conceded  to  the  employees  of  any 
given  employer)  are  morally  wrong  and  legally 
criminal;  his  constant  pressure  for  more  pay  on  the 
one  hand  in  return  for  less  work  on  the  other;  his 
forcible  interference  with  free  action  of  the  natural 
law  of  trade,  are  commercially  dishonest,  economi- 
cally impracticable,  and  financially  disastrous.  They 
have  resulted,  and  must  more  and  more  result,  in 
high  cost  of  living  and  injury  to  industry  and  the 
community;  and  in  inevitably  low  earnings  for  labor 
itself.  For  it  is  impossible  for  labor  to  get  more  out 
of  the  world  by  putting  less  into  it. 

Furthermore,  Mr.  Gompers'  political  policy,  ask- 
ing class  advantage  as  the  price  of  nonpartisan  polit- 
ical harlotry,  offering  the  vote  of  labor  to  the  highest 
bidder,  without  distinction  of  person  or  principle, 
tends  to  complete,  with  the  above,  the  demoraliza- 

[214] 


SUMMARY   OF   CONCLUSIONS 

tion  of  the  union  laborer,  whether  as  honest  work- 
man or  good  citizen. 

The  huge  and  centralized  organization  which  Mr. 
Gompers  controls,  its  enormous  income  of  over  50 
million  dollars  per  annum  (far  beyond  that  of  any 
political  party)  — contributed  by  millions  of  poor 
men,  either  voluntarily,  in  the  belief  that  paying 
tribute  thus  fattens  the  pay  envelope;  or  perforce, 
by  reason  of  terrorism  or  in  the  grip  of  the  ruthless 
"check-off"  system  —  this  organization  and  income, 
especially  the  latter,  give  to  the  labor  autocracy 
power  so  great,  so  irresponsible,  and  so  dangerous, 
as  well  to  deserve  the  jealous  scrutiny  and  control  of 
a  free  people.  Even  Tammany  Hall  does  not  hold 
as  it  were  a  first  lien  on  the  wages  of  the  thousands 
of  employees  of  the  city  of  New  York;  nor  does  the 
Democratic  Administration  take  out  of  the  pay  en- 
velopes of  letter  carriers  all  over  the  country,  before 
handing  them  to  their  hard-worked  owners,  an  as- 
sessment to  support  the  "  Organization  "  !  Ponder 
this  thing  well,  gentlemen  of  the  press. 

Turning  to  industrial  considerations,  the  huge  and 
complex  system  of  labor  organization  and  federation 
by  crafts  instead  of  by  employments  —  tying  to- 
gether as  it  does  the  labor  troubles  of  all  concerns 
employing  members  of  the  same  craft  —  is  a  neces- 
sary hindrance  to  industrial  peace,  and  makes  for  the 
spread  of  strikes.  To  me,  as  a  lover  of  economy  in 
operation,  it  seems  over-organized  and  top  heavy; 
and  it  certainly  has  been  colossally  costly  to  labor 
with  no  corresponding  return.  It  is  designed,  as  its 
organic  laws  reveal,  to  carry  out  the  sympathetic 
strike,  the  general  strike,  and  the  strike  against  pub- 
lic welfare;  all  of  which  are  unquestionably  against 
public  policy  and  should  be  abated. 

In  other  words:  the  centralized  control  of,  say, 

[215] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

four  million  workers  in  great  national  strike  machin- 
ery is  of  no  value  to  the  individual  worker,  but  rather 
a  positive  detriment,  in  adjusting  his  wage  and  work 
with  his  actual  employer.  Its  sole  value  and  purpose 
seems  to  be  the  holding  up  of  whole  industries  or 
vital  public  service;  that  is,  of  the  people  —  for  more 
pay  than  is  due  for  work  done,  under  the  free  and 
fair  award  of  the  laws  of  trade.  Else  it  must  be, 
and  indeed  it  openly  is,  intended  as  consolidated 
voting  machinery  to  control  elections  by  class  vote. 

Either  purpose  is  a  menace  to  free  government; 
and  should  be  put  an  end  to  by  law  enacted  by  free 
people.  No  one  benefits  by  either,  except  a  vast 
labor  bureaucracy,  useless  to  labor  itself  and  perni- 
cious to  the  state.  Decentralization,  free  operation 
of  natural  economic  law,  divorce  of  business  from 
politics,  least  government,  least  political  bureau- 
cracy; also,  least  taxation  —  these  seem  to  me  the 
best  tonic  for  our  industries. 

But  they  are  nothing  new;  nothing  but  a  return 
to  normal  conditions  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States. 

Of  course  it  would  be  altogether  desirable,  as  I 
shall  try  to  show  in  a  later  chapter,  that  these  radical 
changes  in  the  organization  and  purpose  of  Labor 
should  come  about  voluntarily  with  its  hearty  co- 
operation and  good  will.  That  would  be  the  ideal 
course  of  action  for  all  of  us  free  Americans.  The 
legislative  remedies  later  suggested  are  proposed 
only  because  so  far  there  is  no  sign  of  change  of 
heart  on  the  part  of  the  labor  leaders.  Unless  the 
Montreal  Convention  of  the  A.  F.  L.,  which  as  I 
write  is  but  a  few  days  off,  shall  abandon  Mr. 
Gompers  and  his  fight  for  centralized  control  of 
labor  and  minimization  of  production  (as  is  most 
unlikely),  the  American  people  must  inevitably,  in 

[216] 


SUMMARY   OF   CONCLUSIONS 

1920  or  later,  meet  at  the  polls  the  fundamental 
question  of  the  freedom  of  government  and  of  busi- 
ness from  the  domination  of  Organized  Labor. 

Meantime,  as  the  Steel  Corporation  has  shown  on 
its  great  scale,  and  my  own  experience  cited  above  con- 
firms for  ordinary  concerns,  every  employer  great  or 
small  can  at  any  time  free  himself  and  his  working 
people  from  the  Labor  Octopus  by  frankly  declaring 
his  job  non-union,  once  and  for  all.  All  that  is  nec- 
essary is  to  so  order  his  affairs  as  to  be  able  to  shut 
down  tight  for  ten  or  twelve  weeks  when  unavoid- 
able, once  in  five  or  six  years  perhaps,  to  give  his 
laborers,  who  by  and  by  forget,  a  little  leisure  to 
learn  and  ponder  again  the  utter  uselessness  of  great 
centralized  Labor-organization. 

Employers  have  been  very  slow  to  do  this  simple 
thing,  however,  and  the  current  evolution  is  and  will 
be,  in  my  judgment,  along  the  lines  of  useful  trades- 
unionism  (that  is  of  strictly  localized  collective 
bargaining,  wherever  it  actually  works  to  mutual 
advantage,  as  in  the  Cleveland  and  Philadelphia 
cases  cited  above),  with  growing  realization  of  the 
democratic  and  educational  value  of  sound  union 
principles. 

Of  course,  such  evolution  will  hardly  suit  Mr. 
Gompers,  who  will  shout  "  Unfair,  unfair  to  labor." 
But  the  public  will  come  to  understand  that  this 
catchword,  so  appealing  to  our  clergy,  means  in  the 
vocabulary  of  Organized  Labor  merely  an  employer 
who  refuses  to  become  party  to  its  great  game  of 
humbugging  four  million  toilers  out  of  fifty  million 
dollars  a  year,  for  no  earthly  use. 


[217] 


CHAPTER   XXX 

REMEDIES.       POPULAR   ACTION.       "  S.    O.    S." 

UNTIL  Mr.  Gompers  announced  his  political  creed 
not  long  ago  no  American  demagogue  had  dared 
openly  to  propose  a  class  vote  for  class  advantage. 
Many  had  been  as  selfish  as  he,  but  all,  I  think,  had 
been  hypocritical;  pretending  to  seek  power  for  the 
good  of  the  people,  or  of  the  world,  as  a  whole.  It 
remained  for  him  alone  to  abandon  all  show  of 
patriotism,  and  announce  that  Organized  Labor 
knows  no  welfare  but  its  own;  that  it  has  no  gen- 
eral political  principles  or  platform,  no  issues  on 
which  to  fight  the  coming  campaign;  and  but  one 
question  to  ask  every  candidate,  whether  Republi- 
can, Democrat,  Socialist,  or  Anarchist,  no  matter 
which,  namely,  —  "What  will  you  do  for  Labor, 
if  elected?" 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  cite  instances  of  the  politi- 
cal demoralization  already  worked  by  this  prostitu- 
tion of  the  labor  vote.  The  whole  mischievous  twist 
of  every  natural  fluctuation  of  wage-scales,  in  re- 
sponse to  changing  trade  conditions,  away  from  a 
purely  economic  to  a  political  issue  of  local  or  na- 
tional extent;  the  Adamson  Law,  with  its  reaction  on 
railway  rates  and  taxation;  its  sequels  of  the  Plumb 
Plan  and  the  "outlaw"  railway  strike;  the  Clayton 
Act,  with  its  attempt  to  legalize  labor  and  farmer 
holdups;  the  Act  returning  the  railways  to  their 
owners  loaded  with  operating  deficit,  yet  with  notice 
to  those  unlucky  investors  that  railway  labor  may  any 

[218] 


POPULAR   ACTION.    "S.   O.   S." 

time,  with  full  sympathy  of  Congress,  paralyze  rail- 
way operation  by  strikes,  even  against  the  public 
welfare  —  all  this  unholy  alliance  of  the  labor  lead- 
ers with  the  politicians  in  power,  to  set  up  govern- 
ment of  the  people  by  and  for  Organized  Labor,  is 
as  dangerous  to  labor  itself  and  the  different  dema- 
gogues concerned  as  it  is  to  the  state  and  to  com- 
merce. No  man  can  tell  when  or  where  a  crash  may 
come,  or  who  will  go  down  in  it. 

We  know  from  the  preceding  chapters  just  what 
Labor  wants  of  politics.  It  wants  free  slugging  on 
the  picket  line,  free  sabotage,  —  no  police  or  mili- 
tary protection  for  non-union  men  or  material  on  the 
way  to  the  job;  it  wants  no  injunctions  protecting 
the  employer  or  non-union  man  against  combination 
to  prevent  his  quietly  pursuing  his  lawful  business; 
it  would  take  from  our  supreme  courts  that  power 
to  invalidate  unconstitutional  laws,  which  has  been 
their  chief  glory  and  most  valued  function;  it  asks 
government  to  take  over  and  mishandle  great  prop- 
erties in  order  to  raise  wages,  shorten  hours,  forbid 
efficiency,  and  plunder  the  public  and  the  taxpayers 
for  Labor's  benefit;  it  wants  the  law  to  force  em- 
ployers to  submit  and  pay  tribute  to  a  huge,  rich,  and 
rapacious  labor  monopoly,  which  in  its  turn  shall 
obey  and  pay  tribute  to  a  small  centralized  labor 
autocracy;  it  carefully  meantime  contrives  utmost 
irresponsibility. 

From  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  this  political 
and  industrial  program  there  appears  but  one  domi- 
nant motive,  —  pure  selfishness;  but  three  constant 
objects,  —  the  most  pay,  the  least  work,  the  great- 
est irresponsibility,  for  Organized  Labor.  There  is 
but  one  consistent  appeal  —  to  the  miserable  human 
instincts  of  envy,  hatred,  discontent,  and  sloth;  but 
one  uniform  method  —  monopoly  and  coercion;  but 

[219] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

one  regular  line  of  action,  if  it  can  be  called  action 
—  to  balk,  rather  than  to  pull  with  all  the  rest  of 
us.  From  beginning  to  end  there  has  never  been 
evident  the  least  intention  to  help  the  community  by 
doing  more  when  asking  more;  but  always  on  the 
contrary  the  plan  is  to  rob  the  crowd  by  extorting 
more  for  doing  less,  under  threat  if  resisted  to  work 
ruin  by  doing  nothing  at  all.  Representative  gov- 
ernment is  now  asked  to  sanction  this  program 
throughout. 

Let  me  urge  upon  your  apprehension,  gentlemen 
of  the  press,  the  menace  to  free  constitutional  gov- 
ernment of  this  so-called  non-partisan  political  as- 
pect of  the  "  labor  movement."  Industrial  troubles 
will  wear  themselves  out;  indeed  they  are  rapidly 
doing  so,  as  the  country's  growing  impatience  with 
the  balky  mule  of  Organized  Labor  gets  to  the  point 
of  starting  a  fire  under  it.  Comparative  peace  will 
settle  down  and  losses  will  be  forgotten  by  and  by. 
But  unless  you  gentlemen  put  the  country  on  guard 
at  the  polls  against  a  sort  of  national  Tammany 
Hall  of  four  million  members,  say  two  million  pos- 
sible votes,  and  fifty  million  dollars  certain  income, 
frankly  and  definitely  "  out  for  the  stuff  "  for  them- 
selves and  families,  at  the  cost  of  the  rest  of  us  and 
our  families,  —  unless  you  stand  for  enforcement  of 
law;  for  representative  government  against  class  con- 
trol ;  for  the  Supreme  Court  against  the  Federation  of 
Labor;  in  short,  for  the  Constitution  as  handed  down 
to  us  by  our  fathers,  —  we  who  want  to  govern 
ourselves,  and  have  something  to  save,  may  have  to 
gather  it  together  and  start  a  new  pilgrimage  from 
Plymouth  Rock  (this  three  hundredth  anniversary 
year  of  1920  would  be  an  appropriate  date),  say, 
to  the  Sahara  or  the  North  Pole,  where  it  would 
hardly  pay  Mr.  Gompers  to  follow. 

[220] 


POPULAR   ACTION.    "S.   O.   S." 

However,  I  have  not  the  least  idea  that  such  a 
pilgrimage  is  really  before  us.  During  the  Spanish 
War  an  Englishman  of  high  degree  once  asked  me 
in  a  London  drawing-room  what  we  were  going  to 
do  with  the  Philippines.  I  answered  that  I  could 
not  imagine;  that  under  our  theory  of  government 
by  consent  of  the  governed  there  was  no  place  for 
a  subject  race  in  our  political  system;  while  on  the 
other  hand  we  would  never  put  a  presidential  elec- 
tion at  the  risk  of  perhaps  the  Philippine  vote.  He 
answered  dryly :  "  You  Americans  are  a  practical 
people.  Why  not  quit  talking  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  and  the  Rights  of  Man;  and  govern 
those  savages  ?  " 

That  was  an  English  aristocrat's  point  of  view, 
surely  enough;  but  there  was  a  grain  of  suggestion 
in  it.  We  Americans  are  a  practical  people,  and 
make  up  our  minds  with  amazing  suddenness  to 
govern  the  lawless,  when  it  becomes  necessary.  The 
coming  campaign  may  illustrate  the  habit;  and  if  it 
does,  will  be  quite  in  line  with  recent  demonstrations 
of  popular  practical  wisdom  in  the  other  two  great 
democracies,  —  England  and  France.  But  a  short 
time  ago  the  mass  of  the  English  people,  though  with 
them  trades-unionism  is  far  stronger  than  with  us, 
rose  against  it  in  the  matter  of  railway,  coal,  and 
docker  strikes;  supporting  the  government  in  main- 
taining public  service  so  powerfully  that  the  strikes 
collapsed.  The  French  people  have  similarly  solidly 
supported  the  government  against  the  French  Fed- 
eration of  Labor;  and  today  the  cables  say  that  the 
peasantry  are  presenting  great  petitions  to  the  Cham- 
ber of  Deputies,  asking  legislation  against  strikes  to 
hold  up  public  service.  Those  peasants  want  work 
and  earnings! 

Over  here,  yesterday,  the  Anthracite  Mine  Work- 
[221] 


LABOR    IN   POLITICS 

ers  in  session  at  Wilkesbarre,  declaring  that  "class 
legislation  has  made  it  almost  humanly  impossible 
to  wage  a  successful  strike,"  accepted  President  Wil- 
son's plan  to  remain  at  work  subject  to  an  arbitra- 
tion agreement  retroactive  to  April  i ;  and  they  were 
wise  to  bow  to  public  opinion.  For  this  year  of  war 
aftermath,  of  reconstruction  of  unbelievable  loss  of 
life  and  wealth,  is  the  psychological  moment  when 
public  opinion  must  as  a  matter  of  life  and  death 
begin  to  assert  itself  along  lines  of  common  hon- 
esty and  sound  economics.  It  is  far  easier  to  drop 
in  and  do  so  at  the  polls  meantime,  than  to  start  for 
the  Sahara  or  the  Arctic  next  Plymouth  Rock  Day. 

Here  is  the  situation.  Our  constitutional  and 
statute  law,  until  the  recent  passage  of  the  Clayton 
Act  with  its  class  favors  to  farmer  and  laborer,  em- 
bodied all  the  protection  necessary  for  the  peaceful 
prosecution  of  every  man's  lawful  business;  if  en- 
forced. For  forty  years  the  threat  of  the  labor  vote, 
held  over  the  heads  of  politicians  in  power,  has  more 
or  less  prevented  enforcement;  and  now  it  is  to  be 
used  to  change  the  Constitution  and  statute  law  so 
as  to  do  away  with  all  protection  altogether.  For 
the  presidential  election  it  is  supposed  to  total  a  pos- 
sible two  million  out  of  eighteen  million  votes  to  be 
cast  by  all  parties  (women's  votes  additional)  ;  which 
would  be  quite  enough  to  turn  the  election  if  voted 
solid  —  as  it  never  has  been.  It  is  advertised  as 
non-partisan,  for  sale  to  the  highest  bidder,  both  in 
national  and  local  elections. 

Bear  in  mind,  however,  that  to  counterbalance  the 
threat  of  the  labor  vote,  and  restore  the  nerve  of 
party  politicians,  it  is  only  necessary  to  mobilize  a 
similar  free-lance  vote  of  opposite  intention,  and  the 
same  possible  size;  committed  to  the  preservation  of 
constitutional  liberties  and  rights.  The  visibility  of 

[222] 


POPULAR   ACTION.     "S.   O.   S." 

such  a  possible  counterbalancing  vote  would  promptly 
free  the  average  Congressman  from  labor  terrorism ; 
and  when  free  from  pressure  the  average  American 
legislator  tries  to  do  about  right. 

Of  course,  to  recruit  two  million  votes  is  a  man- 
sized  task;  but  at  this  juncture  it  does  not  seem  to 
me  impossible.  I  would  suggest  the  following  out- 
line of  a  Plan  of  Campaign  as  a  starter,  to  set  popu- 
lar thought  in  motion  along  lines  of  popular  action : 

PLAN 

That  employers,  large  and  small,  in  each  im- 
portant city,  start  a  non-partisan  movement  in  de- 
fense of  constitutional  individual  right  to  do  lawful 
business,  and  against  all  combination  to  prevent  the 
same  —  and  that  they  finance  it,  as  performance  of 
their  plain  duty  to  themselves  and  the  community, 
particularly  to  their  own  employees,  —  using  per- 
haps, as  the  most  open,  rapid,  and  economical  way 
of  enlisting  popular  support,  advertisements  in  the 
daily  papers,  somewhat  as  follows  (form  of  adver- 
tisement) : 

"  S.  O.  S." 

The  undersigned,  and  such  other  employers  as  may  see  fit 
to  join  them,  hereby  send  out  this  S.  O.  S.  call  to  all  who 
believe  in,  and  are  willing  to  stand  for,  the  subjoined  Dec- 
laration of  Principles;  urging  them  to  sign  and  send  in  the 
subjoined  application  for  membership  in  the 

"  SICK  OF  STRIKES  "  OR  "  SAVE  OUR  SAVINGS  "  UNION 

of  the  city  of  ,  State  of  ,  and  thereafter  to 

support  the  said  principles,  and  carry  them  into  effect,  as 
occasion  may  arise,  by  their  votes  at  city,  state,  and  national 
elections,  whenever  consistent  with  such  paramount  political 
obligations  as  may  from  time  to  time  appear. 

[223] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

Acceptance  of  this  call,  and  membership  in  the  S.  O.  S. 
Union  of  ,  will  involve  no  money  obligation  for  dues 

or  debts  of  the  Union;  which  has  been  incorporated  as  an 
association  not  for  profit,  and  will  be  financed  by  the  under- 
signed, and  any  others  who  may  wish  to  contribute  toward 
its  expenses;  but  it  is  understood  that  no  member  shall  vote 
at  elections  of  officers  of  the  Union,  or  for  members  of  its 
committees,  unless  he  shall  contribute  to  its  support.  Each 
contributor  shall  have  one  vote,  regardless  of  the  amount  of 
his  contribution,  and  one  only. 

A  first  meeting  of  contributors  for  the  election  of  Officers 
and  Committees  will  be  held  on  ,  at  o'clock 

at  Number  Street,  in  the  city  of 

The  Union  will  be  non-partisan;  and  will  not  nominate, 
or  as  a  Union  support  or  oppose,  candidates  for  office.  Its 
activities  will  be  limited  to  keeping  a  card  index  of  members ; 
and  communicating  to  them,  preferably  by  advertisements 
such  as  this  (as  serving  to  inform  the  public  generally,  also) 
such  specific  information  upon  issues  and  candidates,  as  will 
enable  members  to  guide  their  own  votes  according  to  the 
principles  professed  by  the  Union. 

Additions  or  amendments  to  those  principles  may  be  pro- 
posed to  the  Officers  or  Committees  by  any  ten  (10)  mem- 
bers (for  which  purpose  the  roster  of  membership  shall  be 
open  to  any  member)  ;  and  shall  be  received  and  passed  along 
by  mail  by  the  Secretary,  at  the  expense  of  the  proposers,  to 
the  contributing  membership.  If  accepted  by  a  majority  of 
the  latter,  they  shall  then  be  submitted  in  like  manner  to  the 
whole  membership  for  adoption  by  majority  vote;  in  which 
each  member,  contributor  or  not,  shall  have  one  vote. 

This  advertisement,  if  cut  out,  signed  and  returned  by 
mail  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Union,  will  constitute  the  signer 
a  member  in  good  standing;  subject  to  resignation  at  any  time. 

DECLARATION  OF  PRINCIPLES 

The  undersigned  have  learned,  by  long  experience,  to 
believe  in  the  following  general  principles : 

I.  Highly  centralized  strike  machines  of  vast  membership 
and  means,  carefully  guarded  irresponsibility,  and  ruthless 

[224] 


POPULAR   ACTION.    "S.   O.   S." 

selfishness  of  purpose,  have  amply  proved  themselves,  by 
frequent  strikes  against  whole  industries  and  the  public,  to 
be  a  menace  to  modern  life.  Furthermore,  by  class  threat 
of  political  activity,  they  now  menace  free  government. 
Therefore  the  Labor  Trust,  like  the  other  Trusts,  should  be 
controlled  by  law. 

2.  Decentralization,  in  labor  and  industry  as  in  politics,  is 
of  the  essence  of  greatest  liberty  and  efficiency. 

3.  Absolutely  free  play  of  the  law  of  supply  and  demand 
in  the  labor  market  as  in  other  markets  is  the  best  friend 
of  the  laboring  man;  and  permits  the  nearest  approach  to 
Social  Justice,  in  actual  practice. 

4.  Combination  either  of  employers  or  laborers  to  coerce 
each  other,   by  other  means  than  lawfully  and  peacefully 
suspending  business  relations,  is  contrary  to  public  policy  and 
private  right;  and  should  be  prevented  by  law. 

5.  Strikes  against  public  service,  or  supply  of  necessities 
of  life,  or  to  hold  up  whole  industries  or  groups  of  employers ; 
likewise  sympathetic  or  general  strikes,  for  the  purpose  of 
coercion  of  private  individuals  or  the  state,   are  criminal, 
against  public  policy,  and  should  be  forbidden  by  law. 

6.  The   assertion   of   the   foregoing   principles,    and    the 
liberation  of  business  and  the  community  from  the  shackles 
imposed  on  both  by  centralized  class  organization,  constitute 
a  public  and  private  duty  to  themselves,  their  employees  and 
the  state,  such  as  to  justify  patriotic  merchants  and  producers 
in  publicly  financing  this  organization  therefor,  as  part  of 
their  costs  of  service,  and  passing  its  cost  along  in  prices  to 
the  public;  in  anticipation  of  benefits  sure  to  accrue  to  all 
concerned  by  reason  of  greater  efficiency,  higher  wages  to 
labor,  lower  cost  to  the  consumer,  and  greater  profit  to  the 
producer  himself. 

7.  Subscription  to  this  Declaration  of  Principles  is  to  be 
taken   merely  as  an   expression   of  conviction,   and   not   as 
obligating  the  signer  to  do  or  refrain  from  doing  any  par- 
ticular thing  in  any  particular  case,  but  rather  as  voicing  his 
general  intention  to  cooperate  in  carrying  said  principles  into 
effect  in  specific  instances,  as  from  time  to  time  his  judgment 
and  ability  may  determine. 

In  accordance  with  the  foregoing  Declaration,  it  is  under- 
[225] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

stood  that  membership  carries  with  it  no  binding  obligation 
whatever  on  the  individual  member;  except  for  such  con- 
tribution toward  the  expenses  of  the  Union  as  he  may  vol- 
unteer. 

(Signatures  of  signers  of  "  S.  O.  S."  call  to  follow  here.) 
The  undersigned  accepts  membership  in  the  S.  O.  S.  Union 

of 

Signature 

Date Address     

If  one  may  judge  from  the  talk  he  hears  on  the 
street  and  among  his  acquaintances,  S.  O.  S.  unions 
initiated  as  above,  by  the  active  employers  and  good 
citizens  in  each  city  and  its  subsidiary  region,  would 
soon  become  powerful  centers  of  concentration  of 
effort  along  the  lines  chosen;  especially  if  the  lead- 
ing spirits  in  them  showed  breadth  and  sincere 
patriotic  purpose.  Their  advertisements  would  soon 
tell  the  story. 

They  would  also  serve  another  extremely  valu- 
able purpose,  namely,  they  would  take  the  social 
curse  off  the  hateful  epithet  "Scab"  —  so  powerful 
in  the  moral  terrorism  it  exercises  among  working 
people.  The  non-union  man  would  find  himself  free 
to  join  an  "  S.  O.  S."  union,  where  "  Scabs  "  were  re- 
spected rather  than  despised.  His  wife  could  hold  up 
her  head  and  say,  "We  belong  to  the  S.  O.  S.  Union." 

Another  socially  just  mode  of  popular  action 
has  several  times  been  mooted,  and  was  hinted  at 
in  one  of  Governor  Coolidge's  pithy  utterances; 
namely,  the  enactment  and  popular  support  of  laws 
forbidding  the  sale  of  food  to  men  on  strike  for  the 
purpose  of  cutting  off  public  service,  fuel,  or  food 
supply  of  any  kind.  "  If  any  would  not  work, 
neither  should  he  eat,"  said  the  Apostle  Paul;  whose 
economics  appear  to  have  been  as  sound  as  his 
Christianity. 

[226] 


CHAPTER   XXXI 

LEGISLATIVE    REMEDIES 

SUPPOSE  we  beat  Labor  at  the  polls,  what  remedies 
should  be  sought  for  at  the  hands  of  representa- 
tives and  executives  elected;  and  on  what  principles 
should  we  base  them?  The  answer  to  both  questions 
is  easy.  First,  we  must  ask  for  restoration  of  con- 
stitutional individual  rights  —  that  is  to  say,  for 
complete  liberty  of  employer  and  laborer,  and  unhin- 
dered operation  of  the  law  of  supply  and  demand; 
and,  second,  we  must  assert  the  right  of  the  com- 
munity to  protect  its  own  life  and  welfare  against 
deprivation  of  food,  fuel,  or  essential  public  service 
of  any  kind,  by  conspiracy  among  workingmen  or 
others.  The  principles  underlying  both  are  those 
embodied  in  the  Preamble  to  the  Constitution,  to 
"  establish  justice,  insure  domestic  tranquillity,  .  .  . 
promote  the  general  welfare,  and  secure  the  bless- 
ings of  Liberty." 

Considering  first  the  liberty  of  the  employer  and 
the  non-union  laborer,  and  the  unhindered  operation 
of  commercial  laws,  the  statute  and  common  law  as 
they  already  stand  are  quite  sufficient,  if  enforced, 
to  ensure  both  desiderata;  except  for  the  recent 
adoption  by  Congress  as  part  of  the  Clayton  Act 
of  a  clause  providing  that  labor  combination  shall 
not  be  held  to  constitute  criminal  conspiracy  at  com- 
mon law  in  restraint  of  trade.  That  Act,  which 
Mr.  Gompers  proudly  says  contains  "  the  most  far- 
reaching  declaration  ever  made  by  any  government 

[227] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

in  the  history  of  the  world,"  should  be  repealed  in 
so  far  as  it  excepts  the  laborer  and  the  farmer  from 
crimes,  which  the  common  law  establishes  as  such 
against  all  the  rest  of  us.  It  has  never  yet  been 
passed  upon  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  and  will,  I  fancy,  be  declared  unconstitutional, 
as  class  legislation,  when  it  has  its  day  in  court;  but 
meantime  it  should,  as  .occasion  arises,  be  made  an 
issue  at  the  polls,  and  its  repeal  should  be  set  on 
foot. 

In  Wall  Street,  first  preferred,  second  preferred, 
and  common  stock  may  be  all  right;  but  we  do  not 
want  first  preferred,  second  preferred,  and  common 
criminals  in  our  jails  or  out  of  them.  The  criminal 
law  should  make  no  class  distinctions  in  democratic 
America. 

Together  with  the  repeal  of  the  no-conspiracy 
clause  of  the  Clayton  Act  should  be  enacted  a  law 
forbidding  strikes  against  the  public  welfare;  also 
forbidding  coercion  of  the  individual  employer  by 
other  means  than  peaceful  refusal  of  his  own  em- 
ployees to  continue  at  work. 

No  man  is  obliged  or  can  be  compelled  to  work 
for  any  particular  employer  or  at  any  particular  task; 
that  would  be  industrial  slavery.  But  there  is  no 
reason  why  the  state  should  not  provide  by  law  that 
any  man  who  chooses  to  take  employment  in  supply- 
ing any  public  or  quasi  public  service,  necessary  to 
the  daily  life  of  the  community,  shall  enlist  in  that 
employment  for  a  stated  term;  during  which  it  shall 
be  unlawful  for  him  to  quit  work,  alone  or  with 
others,  except  by  consent  of  his  employer  previously 
obtained.  Penalties  should  be  provided  for  breach 
of  duty  and  against  conspiracy  and  instigation  to 
commit  such  breach. 

Finally,  in  order  to  "insure  domestic  tranquillity," 
[228] 


LEGISLATIVE   REMEDIES 

and  "promote  the  general  welfare,"  the  general  prin- 
ciple of  Decentralization  of  Power  should  be  applied 
to  Organized  Labor.  To  that  end  an  Act  to  define 
and  limit  Freedom  of  Employment,  that  is,  the  right 
to  hire,  the  right  to  organize,  the  right  to  strike, 
and  the  law  of  collective  bargains,  should  be  passed. 
Such  an  Act  would  contain  very  little  that  is  new, 
and  is  needed  rather  to  clarify  popular  understand- 
ing of  existing  law  than  to  create  it.  Let  us  con- 
sider these  rights  seriatim. 

Every  one  of  us  now  supposedly  enjoys  freedom 
of  employment  as  part  of  his  individual  liberty.  We 
are  always  free  to  offer,  withhold,  accept,  or  refuse 
work  and  wages  in  any  lawful  industry,  under  any 
lawful  conditions.  Whether  the  work  is  heavy  or 
light,  the  wages  large  or  small,  the  hours,  etc.,  hard 
or  easy,  concerns  only  the  man  who  offers  and  the 
men  who  accept  or  refuse.  Neither  can  compel  the 
other  to  offer,  withhold,  change,  accept,  or  refuse. 
The  transaction  is  purely  voluntary  on  both  sides, 
becomes  binding  on  either  party  only  for  the  agreed 
term.  If  employment  is  by  the  day  or  hour,  both 
parties  are  bound  only  for  the  day  or  hour;  and  not 
even  that  long  if  either  party  fails  to  live  up  to 
agreement. 

In  other  words,  neither  party  has  any  "right" 
against  the  other  in  advance  of  an  offer  made  and 
accepted.  The  laborer's  undoubted  freedom  to  ac- 
cept or  refuse  an  offer,  if  made,  does  not  put  the 
employer  under  any  obligation  whatever  to  make  an 
offer.  Single  laborers,  or  a  thousand  laborers  col- 
lectively, are  certainly  free  to  empower  "  a  represen- 
tative of  their  own  choosing"  to  accept  or  refuse  an 
offer  of  employment,  if  made;  but  neither  the  one 
nor  the  thousand,  nor  their  chosen  representative, 
can  compel  the  making  of  an  offer. 

[229] 


LABOR   IN    POLITICS 

The  word  "bargain"  means  voluntary  agreement, 
whether  individual  or  collective.  No  right  can  ac- 
crue to  or  in  a  "  bargain  "  until  one  has  first  been 
made.  Neither  party  has  any  right  even  to  an  in- 
terview for  the  purpose  of  bargaining;  though  usu- 
ally granted  as  a  matter  of  courtesy,  when  there  is 
no  reason  to  the  contrary. 

Nor  can  the  one,  nor  the  thousand,  nor  their  col- 
lective representative  change  an  offer  made  and  ac- 
cepted without  consent  of  the  maker.  They  can  quit 
work,  of  course,  and  end  employment  at  the  end  of 
its  term;  and  signify  their  wish  to  receive  a  new  offer, 
individually  or  collectively;  but  they  cannot  compel 
one  as  a  matter  of  "  right"  In  fine,  there  is  no  such 
thing  in  law  or  in  morals,  in  the  use  of  plain  English 
language,  as  a  right  to  collective  or  any  other  kind 
of  bargaining,  binding  on  Judge  Gary  or  anybody 
else.  Nor  is  there  anything  "  autocratic"  in  the  re- 
fusal of  any  employer  to  entertain  collective  pro- 
posals for*  employment,  if  in  his  judgment  they 
will  not  result  in  stable  and  mutually  satisfactory 
relations. 

Merely  as  a  matter  of  clarifying  public  opinion, 
the  law  should  so  declare,  that  absolute  liberty  to 
offer,  withhold,  terminate,  acept,  refuse,  or  quit 
work,  lawful  conditions,  and  wages,  belongs  to  every 
man ;  together  with  liberty  to  employer  and  employee 
to  maintain  "union,"  "non-union,"  "open  shop,"  or 
no  relations;  either  individual,  or  collective,  or  both, 
as  mutually  agreed,  without  compulsion  exercised  or 
attempted  on  either  side.  This  declaration  would 
clearly  establish  the  Freedom  of  Employment  that 
actually  now  exists,  and  ought  to  exist,  under  the 
Constitution. 

For  the  evidently  beneficial  purpose  of  Decen- 
tralization—  of  divorcing,  for  reasons  of  public 

[230] 


LEGISLATIVE    REMEDIES 

good  as  well  as  constitutional  private  right,  the  labor 
disputes  of  innocent  and  guilty  —  for  disentangling 
utterly  the  mischievous  snarl  of  factory  with  factory, 
railroad  with  railroad,  trade  with  trade,  city  with  city 
—  for  brushing  away  the  great  spider's  web  which 
Organized  Labor  has  spread  over  all  industry,  at 
whose  center  Mr.  Gompers  awaits  the  tremor  that 
tells  of  some  luckless  insect  of  trade  whose  wings 
have  carelessly  touched  his  snare  —  for  this  reason- 
able purpose  the  law  should  now  ordain: 

That  Organization  of  Labor,  for  the  purpose  of  col- 
lective negotiation,  performance,  and  termination  of  contracts 
of  employment,  shall  be  voluntary,  as  to  the  parties  to  each 
contract ;  and  limited  to  the  employees  of  one  and  the  same 
employer. 

That  no  organization,  or  "  union  "  of  the  employees  of  any 
one  employer,  shall  combine  with  any  other  similar  union 
or  unions  for  the  purpose  of  compelling  collective  bargain- 
ing, or  for  collectively  quitting  work  under  or  ending  con- 
tracts of  employment;  or  for  the  purpose  of  limiting  in  any 
way  the  constitutional  liberty  of  any  employer  or  employee; 
or  for  the  purpose  of  "  striking  "  an  entire  industry,  public 
service  or  utility,  for  any  cause  whatever;  also,  that  no  em- 
ployer shall  combine  with  any  other  employer  or  employers 
for  the  purpose  of  collectively  bargaining  for,  offering,  con- 
trolling, and  terminating  contracts  of  employment,  or  for 
preventing  free  competition  in  the  labor  market,  or  for  limit- 
ing in  any  way  the  constitutional  liberty  of  any  employer  or 
employee,  especially  by  means  of  "  locking  out "  or  "  black 
listing  "  employees,  collectively  or  otherwise : 

Provided,  that  regional  groups  of  employers  in  the  same 
line  of  industry  may  by  mutual  agreement,  collectively  bar- 
gain and  act  with  groups  of  unions,  separately  organized  as 
above  among  the  employees  of  each  of  said  employers,  as  to 
all  matters  of  employment:  but  no  such  collective  bargain- 
ing or  action  shall  be  used  to  coerce  or  to  limit  the  consti- 
tutional liberty  of  any  employer  or  employee  not  party 
thereto :  and  also 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

Provided,  that  collective  bargaining  shall  carry  with  it  col- 
lective or  joint  responsibility  for  the  performance  of  bargains, 
not  only  of  each  collectivity  party  to  the  bargain,  but  of  each 
and  every  individual  or  corporation  lawfully  bound  by  the 
act  of  any  representative  of  his  own  choosing. 

That  employees  in  government  or  public  utility  service 
shall  enlist  therein  for  stated  periods;  and  shall  not  quit 
work  individually  or  collectively  before  the  expiration  of 
their  respective  enlistment  periods,  without  consent  of  their 
employers  previously  and  freely  obtained : 

Provided,  that  means  shall  be  set  up  for  fair  adjustment 
from  time  to  time  of  wages  and  conditions. 

I  make  no  suggestion  whatever  to  limit  legislation 
for  preserving  health,  preventing  accident,  compen- 
sation of  women,  vocational  training,  etc.  Every 
right-minded  employer  is  in  accord  with  true  humani- 
tarianism.  The  main  intent  of  my  suggestions  is 
Decentralization. 

But  I  am  just  now  made  aware  of  the  growing 
need  for  one  more  assertion  of  law.  This  book  must, 
I  find,  be  sold  by  circularization  and  mail  order,  in- 
stead of  through  the  usual  book-trade  channels,  be- 
cause none  of  several  large  publishers  consulted  will 
take  it,  though  all  admit  its  interest  and  timeliness. 
Two  of  them  frankly  say  they  do  not  court  trouble 
with  the  printers'  unions  by  putting  their  imprint  on 
such  a  work.  The  others  may  feel  the  same  way,  or 
may  merely  doubt  its  selling  value.  But,  gentlemen 
of  the  press,  there  should  be  no  element  of  terrorism 
in  their  considerations.  A  hundred  thousand,  or  so, 
of  union  printers  cannot  dictate  what  a  hundred  mil- 
lion free  Americans  may  or  may  not  read.  The  law 
should  forbid  strikes  against  the  freedom  of  the 
press;  especially  in  the  interest  of  the  printers  them- 
selves, who  get  their  daily  bread  by  virtue  of  that 
freedom. 

[232] 


CHAPTER   XXXII 

ADMINISTRATIVE    REMEDIES 

THE  clumsy  and  partial  hand  of  government  should, 
as  far  as  humanly  possible,  be  kept  away  from  the 
shrinking  and  sensitive  throat  of  industry;  especially 
from  its  human  element,  labor,  which  in  a  democracy 
so  largely  constitutes  also  the  body  politic.  It  is 
perfectly  clear  that  in  our  American  form  of  repre- 
sentative government,  under  our  Constitution,  we 
originally  contemplated  neither  a  Socialist  nor  a 
Soviet  state,  nor  wished  to  determine  for  each  man 
his  exact  place  in  the  life  of  the  community,  his 
definite  work,  and  his  fixed  share  in  the  common 
product.  We  had  not  then,  and  have  not  now,  the 
remotest  idea  of  making  ourselves,  every  one  of  us, 
the  serfs  of  bureaucratic  administration;  whether  it 
be  of  Woodrow  Wilson  or  Samuel  Gompers,  or  any 
other  man  or  set  of  men. 

On  the  contrary  our  fathers  proclaimed  the  widest 
constitutional  liberty  of  the  individual  and  told  gov- 
ernment to  keep  hands  off,  except  in  so  far  as  neces- 
sary to  protect  our  liberties  against  aggression  from 
the  outside  or  from  each  other. 

It  follows,  then,  so  long  as  our  theory  of  govern- 
ment remains  unchanged,  that  no  interference  of  gov- 
ernment with  industry  should  be  asked  or  tolerated, 
except  to  enforce  the  law,  to  keep  the  peace,  and 
to  protect  our  personal  and  property  rights. 

This  involves  a  clarifying  of  public  opinion  on  the 
tender  subject  of  picketing;  or  prevention  of  free 

[233] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

operation  of  the  law  of  supply  and  demand  in  em- 
ployment of  labor. 

To  present  the  subject  concretely  I  quote  from 
today's  paper  (Boston  Herald,  April  20)  the  fol- 
lowing: "Pistol  Ball  hits  Striking  Docker.  One 
man  was  shot,  two  were  arrested  charged  with  as- 
sault, and  a  third  arrested  for  assault  and  battery 
yesterday,  following  an  altercation  on  Long  Wharf, 
when  a  brick  alleged  to  have  been  thrown  by  a  strik- 
ing longshoreman  into  a  truck-load  of  strike  break- 
ers drew  fire  from  one  or  more  revolvers.  All  three 
arrested  are  strikers.  The  person  who  fired  the 
shots  managed  to  escape  detection  by  intermingling 
with  the  75  or  more  of  their  fellow  men  on  the 
truck." 

On  this  particular  occasion  the  pickets  seem  to 
have  got  the  worst  of  it.  Since  the  recent  Boston 
police  strike  has  changed  substantially  the  entire 
police  force  the  new  men  seem  to  be  disposed  to 
end  rioting.  The  Long  Wharf  dockers  had  struck 
and  quit  work  many  days  before  the  shooting  just 
described.  They  did  not  quit  the  premises,  how- 
ever, but  hung  around  the  wharf  to  prevent  the 
movement  of  goods  by  men  hired  to  take  their  places 
—  so-called  "strike  breakers."  At  once  appeared 
the  usual  characteristic  of  most  strikes,  viz.,  that  the 
strikers  have  not  the  least  intention  of  throwing  up 
their  jobs  and  are  not  really  dissatisfied  with  them. 
If  they  were,  they  would  simply  look  out  for  places 
they  like  better,  and  quit  as  fast  as  found,  one  by 
one.  (In  fact  this  is  constantly  done;  so  much  so, 
that  voluntary  shifting  of  men  from  job  to  job  — 
known  as  "labor-turnover"  —  has  averaged,  I  am 
credibly  informed,  in  large  industries  one  hundred 
per  cent  of  the  total  force  employed  during  recent 
years,  and  has  become  a  very  serious  burden  to  em- 

[234] 


ADMINISTRATIVE   REMEDIES 

ployers.)  What  the  strikers  really  intend  is  not 
only  to  stop  work  themselves;  but  to  see  to  it  that 
nobody  else  works  in  their  places,  until  their  em- 
ployer is  compelled  to  ask  them  back  upon  their  own 
terms.  In  short,  coercion! 

Of  course  the  employer  is  lawfully  free  to  offer 
to  others  the  work  and  wages  the  strikers  have  quit; 
and  those  others  are  lawfully  free  to  accept.  Ex- 
perience has  shown  that  in  the  majority  of  cases 
there  are  men  enough  ready  to  accept  the  work  and 
wages  refused  by  those  who  quit  to  carry  on  the 
various  jobs  and  "break  the  strike,"  unless  prevented 
—  peaceably  or  otherwise. 

That  is  where  the  "picket  line"  comes  in:  to  pre- 
vent newcomers,  who  are  willing  and  even  glad  to 
take  the  vacant  jobs,  from  doing  so  by  "  peaceful 
persuasion,"  or  otherwise.  The  American  constitu- 
tional right  of  assembly  is  held  by  Labor  to  mean 
that  strikers  may  block  the  public  streets;  the  con- 
stitutional "  right  of  free  speech  "  means  inflamma- 
tory talk  against  the  employer,  and  the  use  of  the 
odious  epithet  "  scab  "  against  the  non-union  worker, 
even  against  his  wife  and  children.  What,  then, 
should  a  clarified  public  opinion  require  of  govern- 
mental administration,  as  reasonable  enforcement  of 
law,  beside  keeping  of  the  peace  and  protection  of 
personal  and  property  rights? 

The  answer  seems  to  me  plain  and  clear.  Strikers 
have  undisputed  right  to  quit  their  work;  but  if  they 
do,  they  have  no  right  upon  the  premises,  and  the 
employer  has  undisputed  right  to  eject  them.  They 
then,  in  common  with  all  the  public,  have  undisputed 
right  of  thoroughfare,  of  peaceful  passage,  along 
the  public  streets.  They  have,  however,  no  right  to 
block  them,  or  to  interfere  in  any  way  with  their 
free  use  for  lawful  movement  of  men  or  materials; 

[235] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

especially  have  they  no  right  to  commit  or  incite 
breach  of  the  peace.  Mr.  Gompers  can  juggle 
phrases,  such  as  the  "  right  of  picketing  with  peace- 
ful persuasion,"  etc.;  but  as  a  matter  of  fact,  plain 
speaking,  and  common  sense,  every  one  knows  that 
the  purpose  of  picketing,  whether  "peaceful"  or 
not,  is  nothing  else  than  prevention  of  the  free  flow 
of  labor  and  material  essential  to  the  lawful  busi- 
ness of  the  employer,  and  to  the  self-support  of  the 
non-union  laborer,  thus  violating  the  constitutional 
rights  and  liberties  of  both.  When,  in  addition  to 
such  unmistakable  intent  to  violate  private  right,  the 
strikers  deliberately  risk  if  not  invite  breach  of 
the  public  peace,  —  in  spite  of  countless  monitory 
experiences,  —  it  becomes  to  me  an  unavoidable  con- 
clusion that  public  welfare  and  private  justice  alike 
demand  that  the  authorities  shall  stop  "picketing" 
altogether. 

This  conclusion  is  confirmed,  and  the  wrongful  in- 
tent of  Organized  Labor  is  verified,  by  its  bitter  op- 
position to  the  granting  by  the  courts  of  writs  of 
injunction,  whether  —  as  very  rarely  —  they  restrain 
the  unions  from  picketing,  or,  as  they  usually  do, 
merely  from  violence  and  intimidation  on  the  picket 
line.  If  the  unions  Intend  no  breach  of  law,  or  of 
the  peace,  why  should  they  object  to  the  injunction 
of  the  court  to  obey  the  law  and  keep  the  peace?  If 
they  rely  merely  on  their  own  peaceful  refusal  to 
work,  why  do  they  not  simply  stay  from  the  job 
altogether,  until  the  employer  begs  them  to  come 
back? 

You,  gentlemen  of  the  press,  who  are  accustomed 
to  sizing  up  men  and  motives,  well  know  that  while 
it  is  morally  and  legally  right  for  a  man  to  refuse 
work  and  quit,  if  dissatisfied;  it  is  also  morally  and 
legally  wrong  for  him  to  stand  in  the  way  of  another 

[236] 


ADMINISTRATIVE   REMEDIES 

man,  who  is  willing  to  take  what  he  refuses ;  wrong 
both  to  that  other  man  and  to  the  employer. 

It  is  probably  true,  and  long  experience  has  shown 
that  picketing  is  practically  essential;  and  without  it 
strikers  seldom  win.  And  it  is  also  true  that  picket- 
ing generally  results  in  violence.  The  famous  detec- 
tive, old  Allan  Pinkerton,  testified  in  the  "  Mollie 
McGuire "  riot  trials  forty  years  ago  in  Pennsyl- 
vania, that  "  Organized  Labor  is  organized  vio- 
lence," and  the  New  York  papers  a  few  years  back 
quoted  Mr.  Gompers  as  saying,  "A  strike  without 
violence  is  a  joke."  Whether  he  ever  said  this  I 
do  not  know;  but  it  is  certainly  true  of  all  big  strikes. 
Yet  the  fact  that  strikers  cannot  win  without  violent 
or  wrongful  means  of  coercion  does  not  justify  those 
means.  On  the  contrary,  a  fortiori,  as  the  law  de- 
nounces and  forbids  them,  so  administration  should 
enforce  the  law. 


[237] 


CHAPTER   XXXIII 

EMPLOYERS'  REMEDIES 

MUCH  has  been  said  of  late  to  the  effect  that  the  em- 
ployer is  to  blame  for  labor  troubles ;  that  the  scale 
of  modern  industry  is  too  great  for  the  human,  per- 
sonal touch,  between  master  and  man,  that  creates 
affection,  and  confidence  between  them.  A  soulless 
organization  is  said  to  have  intervened;  a  machine, 
in  which  the  workman  is  a  mere  unheeded  cog,  with- 
out recognition  as  a  human  being.  This  accusation 
is  true  to  the  extent  that  the  employer,  as  the  abler, 
broader  man,  with  strength  to  bear  his  fellow  men's 
burdens,  may  reasonably  be  asked  to  look  farther 
ahead  for  his  workers,  as  an  essential  factor  in  his 
industry,  than  they  can  be  expected  to  look  for  them- 
selves. And  it  is  a  fact  that  large  employers  almost 
without  exception  are  today  keenly  alive  to  the  hu- 
man, personal  element  in  labor  relations,  and  are 
endeavoring  as  never  before  to  appeal  to  the  mind 
and  heart  of  the  individual  worker,  as  well  as  to  his 
pocket. 

I  am  glad  to  believe  that  this  new  interest  in  hu- 
man relations  is  largely  a  matter  of  kind  heart  and 
good  conscience  with  most  captains  of  industry;  but 
better  and  sounder  still,  that  it  is  at  the  same  time 
one  of  constructive,  good  business  management. 
Every  man  who  like  myself  has  been  a  considerable 
employer,  and  knows  workingmen,  will  agree  with 
me,  I  think,  that  there  can  be  no  sound  permanent 
and  cordial  relations  between  the  two  that  are  not 
based  on  mutual  interest.  Pretense  of  unselfishness 

[238] 


EMPLOYERS'    REMEDIES 

is  distrusted,  patronage  is  odious;  yet  it  is  emphati- 
cally true  that  if  a  manager  sincerely  sees  to  it  that 
his  men  get  the  most  and  best  that  their  jobs  can 
fairly  yield  them  in  comparison  with  other  jobs,  the 
men  reciprocate  by  making  those  jobs  yield  more 
and  better  yet  to  him  and  to  themselves. 

As  I  have  said  before,  men  usually  work  for  other 
men  because  they  cannot,  no  matter  why,  work  for 
themselves.  Here  are  then  the  plainly  evident  in- 
terests of  all  wageworkers,  —  absolute  necessities,  as 
I  see  them: 

First,  Employment.  The  man  must  have  a  job, 
furnished  by  some  one  else.  It  must  be  steady,  for 
his  time  is  all  he  has  to  sell,  and  every  day  he  idles 
is  so  much  pay  lost  forever.  He  should  be  the  last 
man  to  interrupt  his  own  job,  nor  should  it  be  sub- 
ject to  interruption  by  quarrels  of  other  men  with 
other  jobs  in  which  he  is  not  concerned. 

Second,  Freedom  to  Change.  If  his  job  fails, 
does  not  pay,  or  does  not  suit,  it  is  vital  to  him  to 
be  free  to  take  any  other  job ;  not  shut  in  or  out  by 
union  walls.  It  is  best  for  him,  and  for  the  com- 
munity, that  labor  should  be  like  capital,  liquid;  free 
to  flow  where  most  needed,  in  ample  supply  every- 
where, stagnant  nowhere. 

Third,  Going  Wages,  Regularly  Paid.  Everybody 
wants  "  top  wages,"  but  only  that  employer  can  pay 
them  who  gets  from  his  men  top  production;  for 
product  is  all  that  pays  wages.  A  man's  wages  are 
not  so  much  the  amount  of  his  pay  check,  as  the  food, 
clothing,  etc.,  that  check  will  buy.  It  is  no  use  for 
any  body  of  men  to  try  to  get  much  more  than  "  going 
wages,"  because  they  represent  the  natural  economic 
division  of  what  there  is  to  go  around;  which  last  is 
substantially  used  up,  every  year.  Men  cannot  and 
do  not  by  striking  get  more  out  of  their  jobs  than 

[239] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

they  themselves  put  into  them.  The  surplus  is  not 
there!  Up  to  the  point  of  healthy  fatigue,  the 
worker  should  regularly  do  his  best  to  increase  out- 
put, and  decrease  unit  cost  to  his  employer,  because 
that  alone  can  increase  his  own  pay  check  without 
robbing  some  one  else. 

Fourth,  a  Prosperous  Employer.  The  man  wants 
regular  work,  week  in  and  out,  and  sure  pay.  That 
means  always  a  strong  and  prosperous  employer, 
independent  of  the  labor  and  financial  troubles  of 
other  concerns. 

Are  not  these  four  things  that  labor  wants  exactly 
what  the  employer  wants,  —  regular  and  steady  op- 
eration; free  labor  supply;  top  output  with  resulting 
low  cost;  high  wages,  and  a  prosperous  business?  Is 
there  not  here  true  identity  of  interest  of  Capital, 
Labor,  and  the  Community? 

The  employer  can  help  toward  this  identity  and  is 
now  very  frequently  helping  by  systematic  propa- 
ganda, educating  his  employees  in  the  law  of  wages 
and  away  from  the  gospel  of  hatred  and  antagonism 
taught  by  Mr.  Gompers  and  his  organization.  A 
long  step  in  such  education  is  the  "  shop  committee  " 
movement,  which  Labor  now  so  vigorously  opposes; 
it  consists  in  the  election  by  the  work  people  in  each 
establishment  of  representative  committee  men  from 
their  own  number,  who  are  taken  into  frequent  and 
friendly  consultation  by  the  shop  management,  upon 
purely  shop  questions,  touching  work,  wages,  and  con- 
ditions of  employment;  and  who  are  given  oppor- 
tunity to  judge  for  themselves  of  the  reasonableness 
of  the  treatment  accorded  those  they  represent.  The 
essential  value  of  the  scheme  is  that  it  tends  to  create 
intimate  relations  and  confidence  between  men  and 
management  in  each  establishment,  and  to  cut  each 
loose  from  the  troubles  of  neighboring  concerns. 

[240] 


EMPLOYERS'    REMEDIES 

Both  results  are  of  course  dead  against  the  plans 
of  the  Labor  Octopus;  whose  tentacles  have  so  far 
been  wrapped  around  all  industry  —  to  let  none 
escape.  Mr.  Gompers  will  spare  no  effort,  as  I  have 
already  shown  from  his  own  utterances,  to  keep  em- 
ployers and  their  own  employees  from  direct  deal- 
ings with  each  other;  but  you,  gentlemen  of  the 
press,  will  not  mistake  his  motive;  nor  will  you,  I 
think,  say  with  him,  that  "not  only  the  welfare  of 
the  workers  but  the  best  economy  for  the  nation  de- 
mands .  .  .  that  the  workers  be  united  into  organ- 
izations covering  whole  industries,  as  is  now  the  case 
with  the  one  hundred  and  twenty  national  and  inter- 
national trade-unions."  If  the  experience  of  the  last 
forty  years  and  of  the  last  forty  weeks,  superlatively 
that  of  the  last  forty  days,  proves  anything  regard- 
ing the  welfare  of  the  workers  and  the  best  economy 
of  the  nation,  it  is  that  national  and  international 
strike  machines  benefit  nobody  in  this  wide  world 
except  the  demagogues  who  organize  and  run  them. 

Beside  favoring  the  "  human  touch,"  the  Shop 
Committee,  etc.,  many  large  employers  have  started 
profit  sharing,  or  bonus  declarations  out  of  profits. 
Others  give  to  foremen  and  men  entrusted  with 
heavy  work  and  responsibility,  a  percentage  upon 
results.  The  Steel  Corporation  enables  its  men  to 
buy  shares  in  the  company,  guaranteeing  them  against 
loss;  which  in  my  opinion  is  the  best  way  to  insure 
cordial  relations  between  capital  and  labor.  Merge 
them;  then  both  see  both  sides ! 

But  as  most  laborers  do  not  save,  nor  buy  shares, 
nor  care  much  for  profits  or  bonuses  not  payable  until 
the  end  of  the  year  —  maybe  not  then  if  not  earned 
—  and  yet  for  the  good  of  all  concerned  should  be 
tied  solidly  and  loyally  to  their  jobs;  I  suggest  that 
small  employers,  who  cannot  do  as  the  great  corpora- 

[241] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

tions  are  doing,  should  make  term  contracts  with 
employees  individually,  signed  and  secured  by  for- 
feit, to  put  their  minds  at  rest,  once  and  for  all; 
contracts  to  provide  as  follows : 

Employee  not  to  quit  or  be  discharged  (except  for  breach 
of  contract)  or  be  laid  off  on  less  than  three  months' 
notice. 

Employee  to  join  with  fellow  employees,  who  sign  like 
contracts,  in  forming  their  own  union  (in  no  way  tied 
to  any  other  union),  which  shall  choose  from  its  own 
membership  a  Representative  Committee. 

Employer  from  time  to  time  to  prepare  and  announce 
reasonable  maximum  scales  and  conditions  of  output 
and  wages ;  on  the  principle  of  hearty  cooperation  of  all 
parties  for  maximum  efficiency,  consistent  with  healthy 
fatigue.  Employees  falling  short  of  reasonable  maxi- 
mum output  as  per  scale  adopted,  to  draw  pay  reduced 
in  proportion  to  actual  output. 

Representative  Committee  to  have  fullest  facilities  for  in- 
vestigation of  scales  proposed  by  employer;  and  there- 
upon to  accept,  or  arrange  to  modify  or  reject  the  same 
on  behalf  of  their  principals ;  the  members  of  the  union 
to  be  bound  accordingly. 

Employer  and  employee  on  each  pay  day  to  contribute  each 
say  2^2  per  cent  —  in  all  5  per  cent  —  of  the  amount 
due  the  employee  that  day,  and  deposit  this  5  per  cent 
in  a  responsible  bank,  to  accumulate  at  interest  as  a 
forfeit  to  secure  performance  of  the  employment  con- 
tract. The  accumulation  to  be  divided  between  em- 
ployer and  employee,  if  he  quits  or  is  discharged  on 
three  months'  notice,  or  by  mutual  consent;  or  to  be 
forfeited  entirely  by  or  to  him,  if  he  quits  or  is  dis- 
charged without  three  months'  notice,  at  any  time  dur- 
ing the  first  fifteen  years  of  his  employment.  After 
fifteen  years  he  may  retire  and  withdraw  the  whole  ac- 
cumulation, or  take  a  pension  representing  it,  on  giving 
three  months'  notice. 

No  employee  to  be  forced  to  join  union  or  sign  contract; 
any  who  so  elect  may  remain  without  contract  as  ordi- 
[242] 


EMPLOYERS'    REMEDIES 

nary  laborers  by  the  day.  Any  contract  laborer  may 
quit  without  notice  by  losing  his  forfeit. 
In  case  of  deadlock  between  employer  and  Representative 
Committee,  because  of  non-acceptance  of  proposed 
scales  —  the  men  must  give  three  months'  notice  be- 
fore quitting,  or  lose  their  forfeits  —  and  the  employer 
must  do  the  same  before  shutting  down,  or  employing 
new  men,  or  lose  his  forfeit. 

Some  years  ago  a  Western  actuary  figured  for  me 
that  after  fifteen  years  the  laborer  could  draw  down 
an  accumulation  that  would  buy  him  a  little  home  — 
and  after  twenty-five  years  could  retire  on  half  pay 
pension,  should  he  work  on  this  plan;  and  meantime 
his  committee  would  see  to  it  that  he  is  not  over- 
worked and  gets  full  wages  for  what  he  produces. 
This  would  be  far  better  than  he  could  hope  to  get 
by  joining  any  trades-union. 

As  for  the  employer,  he  would  get  the  benefit  of 
stability  of  labor,  maximum  efficiency  and  resulting 
minimum  cost  of  production.  He  could  of  course  al- 
ways add  the  desirable  feature  of  assisting  thrifty 
employees  to  save  and  invest  in  the  business. 

Extraordinarily  strong  and  rich  employers  can  and 
do,  more  and  more,  tie  their  employees  to  them  with 
golden  bands,  that  Mr.  Gompers  cannot  break.  The 
plans  of  Henry  Ford  and  the  Steel  Corporation,  for 
instance  (see  Chapter  on  Profit  Sharing)  are  be- 
yond all  praise,  based  on  good  sound  business  prin- 
ciples. 

The  great  mass  of  employers,  however,  are  not 
big  enough  or  rich  enough  to  follow  suit.  Each  must 
work  out  for  himself,  according  to  his  local  condi- 
tions, his  own  labor  problems.  Decentralization; 
protection  of  individual  right;  freedom  of  the  law 
of  supply  and  demand;  and  growing  education,  must 
bring  cooperation  of  his  workmen  and  himself. 

[243] 


LABOR    IN   POLITICS 

Strike  Insurance  may  help  him  against  the  Federa- 
tion, if  it  becomes  necessary  to  meet  the  latter  that 
way;  and  stronger  appeal  to  human  nature  and  self- 
interest  maybe  made,  such  as  referred  to  in  an  earlier 
chapter,  by  Profit  Sharing,  or  by  Time  Contracts, 
more  attractive  than  anything  the  trades-unions  can 
offer.  Certainly,  having  the  job  to  give,  as  the 
unions  have  not,  the  employer  is  in  position  to  make 
things  much  more  interesting  for  the  laborer  than 
Mr.  Gompers  can.  Nothing  but  lack  of  percep- 
tion and  business  sense  can  prevent  the  prosperous 
employer  from  doing  so,  if  he  chooses.  But  first, 
as  I  have  said  before,  he  must  be  prosperous,  a 
Profiteer,  as  we  call  him  nowadays. 


[244] 


CHAPTER   XXXIV 

REMEDIES   WITHIN   THE   TRADES-UNIONS 

As  I  have  shown  already,  Organized  Labor  is  a 
great  big  business ;  a  very  live  and  powerful  "  going 
concern,"  with  an  enormous  income,  netting  forty 
to  fifty  million  dollars  a  year,  most  of  which  goes  in 
salaries  and  expense  allowances  to  the  professionals 
who  run  its  vast  and  complex  machinery.  It  pre- 
cisely resembles  the  great  political  parties,  in  that 
its  organization  and  management  afford  an  interest- 
ing, conspicuous,  and  profitable  means  of  getting  an 
excellent  living  without  hard  manual  labor. 

It  is,  therefore,  a  plain  and  simple  matter  of  busi- 
ness with  the  leaders  of  Organized  Labor  to  create 
and  maintain  "  Social  Unrest,"  "  Industrial  War- 
fare," "  Struggle  of  the  Oppressed  against  the  Op- 
pressor," etc.,  by  whatever  sounding  modern  title 
one  prefers  to  call  old-fashioned  cupidity — the  wish 
of  those  who  have  not  to  despoil  those  who  have. 
It  pays  those  leaders  richly,  though  it  costs  their  fol- 
lowing collectively  many  times  as  dear,  to  fan  into 
flame  the  natural  rancor  that  smoulders  in  the  human 
breast,  against  abler,  shrewder,  perhaps  more  selfish, 
and  certainly  more  successful,  men,  than  ourselves, 
who  accumulate  while  we  waste.  Until  this  great 
business,  this  great  machinery  for  financing  mischief- 
making,  shall  cease  to  pay  its  creators,  "Social  Un- 
rest" is  sure  to  persist,  and  to  increase. 

Of  course  these  creators  of  the  Bolsheviki,  the 
I.  W.  W.,  the  Socialists,  the  Federation  and  the 

[245] 


LABOR    IN   POLITICS 

Brotherhoods,  and  their  friends  the  politicians,  can 
and  will  be  fought  by  the  rest  of  us  from  without 
their  organizations;  but  as  to  Labor,  it  would  be  a 
happier  and  nobler  thing  to  bring  about  a  change 
of  heart  also  within  the  rank  and  file  of  the  Organ- 
ized Laborers  themselves,  the  great  majority  of 
whom  are  well  known  by  all  of  us  to  be  fundamen- 
tally honest  and  patriotic  Americans.  For  more  than 
half  a  century  they,  and  millions  of  unorganized 
men  and  women,  have  been  taught  by  demagogues 
that  capitalism  is  robbery ;  and  they  are  half  inclined 
to  join  in  the  Bolshevist  cry,  "  Steal  from  those  who 
stole."  Their  "  class  consciousness  "  has  been  art- 
fully stimulated;  the  hateful  name  "  scab  "  has  skill- 
fully been  stuck  by  union  orators  on  every  man  who 
refuses  to  pay  union  dues  and  take  union  orders. 
They  have  been  "  fed  up  "  with  the  union  poison  of 
discontent  and  sloth,  with  the  utterly  dishonest  and 
disloyal  union  doctrine  which  may  be  stated  thus : 
"Take  your  employer's  pay;  but  take  your  union's 
orders." 

It  should  be  possible  by  cooperation  of  employers, 
of  the  public,  and  most  important  of  all,  of  you 
gentlemen  of  the  press,  to  prove  to  all  labor  —  espe- 
cially the  union  men,  whose  very  association  together 
favors  dissemination  and  discussion  of  the  facts  — 
the  following  truths: 

1st.  That  existing  trades-unionism  does  not  pay;  but  on 
the  contrary  is  enormously  costly  to  all  except  its 
leaders. 

2nd.  That  combination  to  violate  the  rights  of  the  em- 
ployer and  the  non-union  man  freely  to  pursue  their 
lawful  business  is  morally  wrong,  legally  criminal, 
and  economically  wasteful  and  stupid. 

3rd.  That  there  is  no  conflict  between  Social  Justice  and 
Capitalism;  but  on  the  contrary  the  nearest  ap- 
[246] 


REMEDIES   WITHIN   THE   UNIONS 

proach  to  Social  Justice  consists  in  free  operation  of 
the  law  of  supply  and  demand  —  which  produces 
Capital,  the  only  demonstrated  foundation  for  pros- 
perity of  Labor. 

4th.  That  the  only  true  and  impartial  measure  of  the 
wages  of  labor  is  and  always  has  been  found  in  the 
competition  of  employers  —  the  "going  wages,"  and 
conditions  which  they  can  see  their  way  to  offer  in  the 
open  market,  consistent  with  profit  in  their  various 
lines  of  trade.  Employers  alone  can  judge  (each  for 
himself,  according  to  his  peculiar  circumstances) 
what  they  can  offer;  and  employees  alone  (each  for 
himself,  according  to  his  individual  case)  can  decide 
what  to  accept  or  refuse. 

5th.  That  the  greatest  industry  and  largest  output,  con- 
sistent with  health  and  reasonable  recreation,  is  best 
for  the  prosperity  not  only  of  the  employer,  but  of 
the  individual  workman,  the  whole  industry,  and 
the  state:  and  should  be  a  matter  of  individual  and 
union  pride  and  duty. 

6th.  That  union  leadership  can  be  made  greatly  useful 
instead  of  useless  to  Labor  itself;  profitable  instead 
of  hurtful  to  industry  and  the  state;  and  yet  far 
more  honorable  and  remunerative  as  a  personal 
life  career  for  ambitious  men  than  it  now  is  —  by 
swinging  the  great  mass  and  power  of  Organized 
Labor  into  cooperation  with  Capital  for  highest  effi- 
ciency, and  highest  wages ;  instead  of  fighting  always 
for  sloth  and  inevitable  poverty. 

7th.  That  a  great  field  of  usefulness  and  power  lies  open 
to  Organized  Labor  in  Mutual  Life  and  Unemploy- 
ment Insurance,  Cooperative  Buying,  and  Employ- 
ment Service :  and  also  in  the  function  of  collecting 
accurate  information  as  to  wages  and  trade  condi- 
tions, in  all  industries;  to  be  put  at  the  service  of 
shop  committees  in  cooperation  with  employers; 
for  determining  standards  and  methods  of  efficiency, 
healthful  working  hours  and  conditions,  and  in 
general  putting  the  shop  committees  in  a  position  of 
informed  authority  in  all  negotiations  of  employment, 

[247] 


LABOR    IN   POLITICS 

8th.  That  in  Amercia  no  such  thing  as  permanent 
"  class "  can  or  ought  to  exist.  That  class  con- 
sciousness and  class  hatred  and  antagonism  are 
odious  doctrines  of  Karl  Marx,  "  made  in  Germany," 
which  have  no  rightful  root  in  free  American  soil. 
That  our  gospel  is  Roosevelt's  "  Equality  of  Oppor- 
tunity"; with  reward  proportionate  to  and  limited 
only  by  service  rendered.  That  every  man  is  free 
to  move  upward  to  the  highest  level  in  life  and 
achievement  to  which  his  powers  and  services  can 
attain ;  and  there  will  be  his  "  class"  if  he  prefers 
that  word,  so  long  as  he  can  stay  there,  and  no 
longer. 

It  is  an  interesting  and  hopeful  sign  of  evolution 
upwards  among  the  unions  to  note  their  progress 
along  the  lines  of  cooperative  activity.  The  gar- 
ment workers  are  in  annual  convention  in  Boston 
this  week  (May  10—15)  and  are  discussing  a  con- 
solidation of  all  textile  and  garment  workers  in  order 
to  centralize  control  of  the  whole  industry  from  start 
to  finish;  a  project  decidedly  against  the  interest  of 
the  workers  and  the  community  also,  from  my  point 
of  view.  Mr.  Sidney  Hillmann,  the  president  of 
the  garment  workers,  seems  to  be,  like  Gompers,  a 
strong  autocratic  Hebrew,  quite  willing  to  run  his 
corner  of  the  universe.  In  one  respect,  however,  his 
ambitions  seem  legitimate  and  of  value,  namely,  in 
his  suggestions  that  his  followers  save  their  money, 
organize  their  own  cooperative  banks,  and  later  go 
on,  with  the  means  thus  mobilized,  to  finance  their 
own  cooperative  factories  in  their  own  trade.  Thus 
the  laborers  will  become  the  capitalists  as  well;  if 
they  are  lucky  in  securing  good  managers. 

The  project  is  perfectly  honest  and  useful,  though 
difficult.  In  England  and  elsewhere  cooperation  has 
now  and  then  developed  among  the  cooperators 
first-class  organizing  financial  and  commercial  abil- 

[248] 


REMEDIES   WITHIN   THE   UNIONS 

ity,  which  has  evolved  great  results :  and  the  leaders 
in  this  work  have  proved  themselves  unselfish.  The 
Rochdale  Cooperative  Stores,  for  instance,  do  huge 
and  profitable  business;  yet  the  able  men  who  man- 
age them  are  content  with  honor,  and  influence,  and 
small  salaries.  It  may  be  some  time  that  State  So- 
cialism can  likewise  find  men  of  first  ability  and  un- 
selfishness, who  will  run  everything  wisely  and  well, 
and  yet  never  help  themselves  to  profit  as  well  as 
power  and  honor.  Before  jumping  at  conclusions, 
however,  we  can  well  await  wider  experience.  At 
present  most  trade  is  non-cooperative,  done  for 
profit  of  the  man  who  does  it  —  not  for  that  of  his 
customers.  So  long  as  cooperation  thus  meets  only 
competition  of  profit-loaded  goods,  it  has  a  natural 
advantage  that  requires  only  ordinary  good  manage- 
ment to  prosper.  On  the  other  hand,  whenever 
most  of  the  trade  is  done  on  the  cooperative  plan, 
if  that  time  ever  arrives,  then  a  real  competition  be- 
tween the  cooperatives  themselves  will  set  in,  de- 
manding decisive  superiority  in  management,  and 
resulting  in  survival  of  the  fittest.  They  will  also 
compete  among  themselves  for  the  good  managers 
at  rising  salaries :  and  the  era  of  altruism  in  man- 
agerial positions  will  pass  away. 

The  chances  are,  however,  that  the  present  non- 
cooperative,  competitive  system  will  endure  gener- 
ally, hereafter  as  heretofore.  It  puts  less  strain  on 
human  nature!  Meantime,  I  see  by  the  morning 
paper  that  the  Boston  building  trades-unions  are 
talking  of  cooperative  building  of  workingmen's 
homes  to  relieve  rent  profiteering.  Building  trade  is 
dull,  and  work  scarce;  and  the  chance  for  an  in- 
teresting experiment  is  fine.  Let  us  hope  the  men 
will  go  to  it  vigorously,  and  succeed. 

To   originate   and  create  some   such  change  of 

[249] 


LABOR    IN   POLITICS 

union  heart  and  union  purpose  as  the  above  — 
founded  on  the  virile  proposition  that  every  man 
ought  to  pull  his  own  weight  in  this  world's  boat; 
ought  to  get  full  pay  and  give  full  value  in  return  — 
might  easily  make  Mr.  Gompers,  for  instance,  if  not 
too  old  a  dog  to  learn  new  tricks,  a  moral  figure  of 
commanding  stature;  and  an  industrial  and  political 
power — though  not  so  supreme  as  he  may  have 
dreamed  a  year  or  two  ago  —  far  greater  than  he  is 
likely  to  become  today.  For  this  nation  is  unmistak- 
ably tired  of  strikes  and  strike  machines;  and  is 
asking  itself  whether  Judge  Gary  is  really  the 
autocrat  —  or  another  masterful  man,  whose  name 
begins  with  G. 

If  I  were  now  an  active  employer  instead  of  a 
mere  "  has  been,"  I  should  at  once  start  propaganda 
among  my  men,  openly  and  aboveboard;  calling 
them  perhaps  to  shop-meetings,  during  paid  working- 
hours,  often  enough  to  set  forth  myself,  and  through 
the  mouth  of  abler  speakers,  the  foregoing  truths; 
and  should  follow  up  such  talks  by  distribution  of 
short  and  simple  printed  studies  of  the  different 
elements  of  the  labor  situation,  one  at  a  time,  with 
such  proofs  as  lie  within  the  daily  observation  of  the 
men  themselves.  Then  I  would  trust  to  their  hon- 
esty and  common  sense  to  act  in  due  time  upon  their 
resulting  convictions.  I  have  abiding  confidence  in 
the  American  working  man,  even  though  he  "  comes 
from  Missouri,  and  wants  to  be  shown." 

Judging  from  my  own  experience,  the  working 
men  would  gladly  meet  in  this  way  the  heads  of  their 
own  industries  in  order  to  size  them  and  their  good 
faith  up  for  themselves  —  a  thing  which,  in  the 
larger  concerns  at  least,  is  otherwise  for  the  most 
part  impracticable. 

[250] 


CHAPTER   XXXV 

VALEDICTORY.      LEAST    GOVERNMENT.      LEAST 
BUREAUCRACY.      LEAST   TAXATION 

ONE  final  word  and  I  am  done,  gentlemen  of  the 
press,  relating  to  the  fundamental  basis  of  efficient 
democracy  and  political  honesty;  I  mean  the  Jef- 
fersonian  doctrine  of  minimum  activity  of  the  state. 
It  was  substantially  as  follows :  '  That  govern- 
ment governs  best,  which  governs  least,"  and  it 
seems  to  me  one  of  the  most  profoundly  states- 
manlike of  all  his  utterances.  Of  course  it  is  abso- 
lutely foreign  to  the  modern  disease  or  mode  of 
thought  which  I  have,  not  too  contemptuously  I  hope, 
referred  to  as  "  collectives " ;  the  feeling  that  so- 
ciety is  so  far  morally  and  politically  responsible  for 
the  development  of  the  individual  that  the  latter  is 
entirely  relieved  from  the  old-fashioned  duty  of 
carrying  his  own  weight  and  taking  care  of  himself. 
It  is  a  curious  mixture  of  guilty  conscience  toward 
the  sweat-shop  worker,  and  envy  or  jealousy  of 
Rockefeller,  that  drives  our  collectivists  blindly  into 
government  ownership  and  operation,  regulation 
and  confiscation  of  all  sorts;  right  in  the  face  of  the 
world-wide,  age-long  knowledge  that  bureaucracy 
and  graft  are  inseparable  from  government,  and  al- 
ways have  been  in  all  history  —  that  the  only  way  to 
minimize  them  is  to  minimize  government.  Equally 
well  does  the  world  know  from  history,  not  only  of 
government  but  of  trade,  of  all  large  organization, 
that  overgrowth  means  disintegration,  inefficiency; 
that  government  in  business  is  overgrowth,  every- 

[251] 


where  and  always  wasteful,  unserviceable — nowhere 
more  conspicuously  than  here  at  home  in  America. 
The  colossal  failure  of  the  present  administration 
within  the  last  two  years,  in  a  dozen  different  stabs 
at  going  into  business,  for  which  the  taxpayers  must 
sweat  in  years  to  come,  would  suffice,  one  would 
think,  to  convince  the  guiltiest  of  our  consciences  that 
we  should  get  government  out  of  business  and  bu- 
reaucracy, and  keep  it  out;  to  make  the  hastiest  of 
us  reflect  that  state  regulation  even,  without  owner- 
ship and  operation,  means  countless  bureaucracies 
like  the  Interstate  Commerce,  the  Federal  Trade, 
and  the  Shipping  Commissions.  The  first  of  these 
has  bankrupted  and  crippled  the  most  efficient  rail- 
roads in  the  world;  the  second  is  doing  its  best  to 
wreck  the  packers  and  the  coal  miners,  who  have 
dared  to  sell  at  prices  fixed  by  world  demand,  in 
the  same  way;  and  the  third  is  doing  its  best  to  stop 
the  enormous  loss  it  has  already  inflicted  on  the 
country  where  it  is,  —  which  is  to  its  credit.  All 
three  of  them  have  supplied,  and  will  long  continue 
to  supply,  first-class  jobs  for  a  host  of  bureaucrats, 
large  and  small.  Useless  bureaucracy,  useless  taxa- 
tion, are  the  deadliest  poisons,  not  so  slow  as  sure, 
that  demagogy  can  administer  to  democracy.  You 
and  I,  gentlemen,  may  never  have  the  luck  to  draw 
our  share  of  the  useless  salaries;  but  we  are  dead 
sure,  each  of  us,  in  his  small  way,  to  pay  our  share 
of  the  useless  taxes. 

What  we  have  to  pay  now,  however,  is  nothing 
to  what  we  would  have  to  pay,  which  heaven  forbid, 
if  in  the  elections  this  year  or  later  we  substitute 
Gompers  for  government,  as  he  asks  us  all  to  do. 
For  the  first  hundred  years  of  our  history  we  got 
along  without  Gompers,  and  with  the  minimum  gov- 
ernment planned  by  our  fathers.  We  can  look  back 

[252] 


VALEDICTORY 

with  pride  on  the  most  unexampled  growth  in  uni- 
versal prosperity  known  to  history.  From  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth  poor  men  came  in  to  share  our 
freedom  and  happiness.  Taxation  and  bureaucracy 
were  almost  nominal;  social  unrest  was  almost  un- 
known. There  was  then  no  great  labor  leader  of 
millions  of  followers,  and  spender  of  millions  of 
dollars  income;  to  manufacture  discontent,  and  tell 
his  once  industrious  and  useful  workers  that  the 
secret  of  success  in  a  democracy  is  to  quit  working 
and  go  to  voting;  to  vote  away  the  fruit  of  others' 
toil  and  thrift.  For  the  last  forty  years  we  have 
had  such  leadership;  and  ten  per  cent  of  our  work- 
ers have  followed  him  down  into  the  slough  of  sloth 
and  inefficiency,  producing  less  and  growing  poorer 
and  sulkier  every  day.  The  remaining  ninety  per 
cent  of  American  workers  are  still  free  and  prosper- 
ous, better  off  than  ever  before  anywhere.  Are  we 
going  to  let  Mr.  Gompers  ruin  them  too,  gentlemen 
of  the  press? 

They  are  the  men  who  are  most  endangered,  and 
with  them  our  whole  enormous  efficiency  and  power 
to  help  ourselves  and  the  world.  Will  you  not  study, 
gentlemen,  and  make  up  your  own  minds  as  to  the 
truth  of  my  contentions;  and  if  you  sustain  them, 
print  their  substance  broadcast,  as  need  arises,  so 
that  he  who  runs  may  read?  It  does  not  matter 
what  our  collectivists  and  theorists  think  or  say,  pro- 
vided the  men  who  work  and  the  men  who  hire  get 
directly  at  each  other;  the  one  with  hearty  good  will 
to  do  a  good  full  day's  work  of  the  best  quality  that 
is  in  him,  without  fear  of  being  called  down  by  his 
union  for  so  doing  —  and  the  other  sure  of  getting 
a  good  workman  and  a  good  output  in  return  for 
good  pay,  without  the  threat  of  a  strike  hanging 
over  every  engagement  he  is  called  upon  to  make. 

[253] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

I  can  assure  you,  from  personal  experience  and 
correspondence  with  more  than  two  thousand  em- 
ployers, that  the  foregoing  last  sentence  contains, 
with  the  keeping  of  the  peace  on  the  public  streets 
by  local  authority,  the  whole  sedative  that  is  needed 
to  put  social  unrest  into  normal  slumber.  I  am  well 
aware,  however,  that,  as  Cleveland  put  it,  "we  are 
confronted  by  a  condition"  which  must  be  changed 
before  the  simple  and  healthful  relation  described 
above  can  be  generally  restored.  There  must  be  a 
change  of  heart;  labor  must  break  away  from  Gom- 
pers.  His  great  high-proof  labor  intoxicant  for 
making  money  out  of  making  mischief  must  be  de- 
natured. We  need  a  Volstead  Act  applicable  to1  Or- 
ganized Labor  to  limit  the  percentage  of  poison  in 
its  brew.  Labor  leadership  must  no  longer  attack 
the  public  welfare!  The  Law  must  step  in;  not, 
however,  to  perform,  but  to  forbid;  to  decentralize 
—  to  say  thus  far,  no  farther,  mayst  thou  go ! 

It  is  time  to  bring  this  long  screed  to  an  end.  I 
hope  it  has  not  bored  you  too  much,  gentlemen;  and 
I  am  too  sure  of  your  intelligence  and  patriotism  not 
to  feel  pretty  sure  of  your  verdict  should  your  pa- 
tience review  the  following,  among  many  official 
utterances  of  Labor  consistently  supporting  my  state- 
ments in  these  pages,  viz. : 

Mr.  Gompers'  demand  of  Congress  in  the  Ameri- 
can Federationist  of  May  23,  1920,  namely: 

Immediate  "  adjustment "  of  wages  to  living  cost. 
Immediate  effective  action  to  prevent  increased  cost  of 

living. 
An  end  to,  and  repeal  of,  all  restricting  or  controlling 

legislation  relating  to  Labor ;  past  or  future. 
To  take  control  of  credit  capital  from  private  financiers. 
For  publicity  of  income  tax  returns. 

[2541 


VALEDICTORY 

Mr.  Gompers'  replies  to  questionnaire  of  the  Re- 
publican National  Committee,  demanding: 

Acceptance  of  the  eight-hour  day  and  six-day  week, 
Saturday  half  holiday  included. 

Recognition  of  right  to  organize. 

Exemption  of  labor  from  antitrust  laws. 

Recognition  of  right  to  choose  "  outside  "  representatives. 

Recognition  of  right  to  strike  even  against  public  wel- 
fare. 

Abandonment  of  injunction  in  Labor  disputes. 

Free  Federal  employment  agencies  controlled  by  labor. 

Wages  big  enough  to  render  old-age  pensions  unneces- 
sary. 

Repeal  of  Kansas  Industrial  Court  Law. 

Recognition  of  the  secondary  strike;  and  of  the  boycott 
when  there  is  "  left  to  labor  no  other  course." 

Resolutions  of  the  A.  F.  L.  in  session  at  Montreal ; 
said  to  include: 

Government  ownership  of  railroads. 

Repeal  of  Cummins-Esch  transportation  law. 

No  antistrike  legislation. 

Election  of  Federal  judges. 

Referendum  to  override  decision  of  Supreme  Courts  that 

laws  passed  are  unconstitutional. 
No  injunction  in  strikes. 
Right  of  teachers  in  public  schools  to  organize. 
Progressive  income  and  inheritance  taxes. 
Federal  licensing  of  all  corporations. 

Demands  of  Organized  Labor,  presented  by 
Mr.  Gompers  in  person  to  the  Platform  Committee 
of  the  Republican  National  Convention  at  Chicago, 
June  9,  1920.  The  substance  of  most  of  them  ap- 
pears above,  but  they  include  also  the  following: 

At  no  time  shall  immigration  be  permitted  when  there 

exists  an  appreciable  degree  of  unemployment. 
Immediate  relief  from  high  cost  of  living  burdens. 

[255] 


LABOR    IN   POLITICS 

Monthly  statements  by  the  Department  of  Labor  of 
costs  of  manufacture  or  production  of  leading  staples. 

Prompt  Federal  investigation  of  profits  and  prices;  and 
publicity  of  income  and  tax  returns. 

Enforcement  and  extension  of  eight-hour  law  in  all  civil 
departments  of  government. 

Exclusion  of  convict  labor  products  from  interstate  com- 
merce. 

Repeal  of  labor  provisions  of  the  Cummins-Esch  Trans- 
portation Act  of  Congress. 

Action  to  prevent  Federal  legislation  from  being  held 
unconstitutional,  by  the  courts. 

Mr.  Gompers'  own  carefully  prepared,  ten-day 
considered,  written  reply  to  Governor  Allen's  Ques- 
tion during  the  Carnegie  Hall  joint  debate  (which 
he  said  at  the  moment  he  would  like  to  answer  "  if 
he  had  time").  The  question  was,  "When  a  dis- 
pute between  labor  and  capital  brings  on  a  strike, 
threatening  public  peace  or  impairing  public  health, 
has  the  public  any  rights  in  such  a  controversy,  or 
is  it  a  private  war  between  labor  and  capital  —  and 
how  would  you  protect  the  rights  of  the  public?" 
Mr.  Gompers  answers  as  follows: 

"  So  far  as  Labor  is  concerned,  the  right  to  strike  will  be 
maintained  not  only  as  a  measure  of  self-defense  and 
self-advancement,  but  as  a  measure  necessary  to  public 
progress." 

Later  he  says : 

"  The  workers  will  not  sacrifice  human  progress  for  an 
abstraction  which  is  called  public  welfare." 

Consider  well  the  foregoing,  gentlemen;  and  in 
contrast  therewith  consider  "  Twelve  principles  for 
the  government  of  American  Industrial  Relations" 
just  submitted  (June  9)  by  a  Committee  on  the  sub- 

[256] 


VALEDICTORY 

ject,  to  a  referendum  of  the  1300  associations  com- 
posing the  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  the  United 
States.  They  may  be  briefed  as  follows: 

1.  Any  man  may  engage  in  any  lawful  occupation,  and 

individually  or  collectively  enter  into  any  lawful 
contract,  limited  only  by  valid  public  authority. 

2.  The  "  open  shop  "  is  an  essential  of  the  right  of  in- 

dividual contract. 

3.  Any  man  may  voluntarily  associate  with  others  for 

any  lawful  purpose  by  lawful  means ;  but  associa- 
tion confers  no  authority  over,  and  denies  no 
right  of,  those  who  do  not  voluntarily  choose  to 
act  or  deal  with  the  association. 

4.  Public  welfare  and  private  protection  require  that 

combination  or  association  of  employers  or  em- 
ployees must  be  subject  to  control  of  the  state; 
and  be  legally  responsible. 

5.  Adequate  and  economical  output  is  a  common  social 

obligation  of  all  engaged  in  any  undertaking. 
Restriction  thereof  for  the  creation  of  scarcity  is 
an  injury  to  society. 

6.  Wages  come  out  of  product,  and  should  be  justly 

proportionate  thereto.  But  management  is  there- 
fore bound  to  cooperate  with  the  laborer  to  en- 
able him,  and  furnish  inducement  to  him,  to  pro- 
duce ;  with  continuous  employment,  incentive  for 
improvement,  and  regard  to  health  and  safety. 

7.  The  work  day  and  work  week  should  be  carefully 

determined  in  each  industrial  case,  for  maximum 
efficiency  consistent  with  welfare  of  the  worker; 
but  reduction  of  working  hours  for  the  sake  of 
leisure,  merely,  should  be  made  only  with  due 
consideration  of  the  larger  interests  of  the  com- 
munity and  the  nation. 

8.  Adequate    means    and    satisfactory    to    both    sides 

should  be  voluntarily  agreed  to  and  established 
for  the  adjustment  of  controversies,  between  em- 
ployer and  employees. 

9.  In  collective  bargaining,  etc.,  either  party  may  ob- 

[257] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

ject  to  representation  of  the  other  by  outside  or 
third  parties,  not  directly  interested  as  employer 
or  employee. 

10.  The   success   of    the   particular   establishment,    or 

work,  with  which  employer  and  employee  are 
connected  is  the  basis  of  reward  for  and  the 
common  interest  of  both.  Cooperation  for  that 
success  is  the  true  basis  of  relations  between  them. 

11.  The  state  is  sovereign.     No  divided  allegiance  of 

its  servants  can  be  admitted;  nor  any  combina- 
tion to  prevent  normal  functioning  of  govern- 
ment. 

12.  In  public  service  the  public  welfare  is  paramount. 

State  control  of  public  utilities  may  well  extend 
to  control  of  their  employees  also,  to  insure  con- 
tinuity of  service. 

There  is  nothing  more  to  add  to  this  terse  sum- 
mary of  the  "  struggle," — as  Gompers  would  call  it, 
—  not  between  Labor  and  Capital  but  between  Labor 
and  an  "  abstraction  which  is  called  public  wel- 
fare." Here  you  have  a  snapshot,  or  a  "movie" 
if  you  like,  of  the  labor  game,  gentlemen  of  the 
press !  As  the  last  few  feet  of  the  film  appear  upon 
the  screen,  —  that  is,  as  I  write  out  and  analyze 
Mr.  Gompers'  ultimata,  and  contrast  them  with  the 
12  points  of  the  United  States  Chamber  of  Com- 
merce,—  I  see  clearly  enough;  and  you  will  see,  I 
think,  that  my  dream  of  a  great  and  useful  change 
of  heart  in  trades-unionism,  as  set  forth  a  chapter 
or  two  back,  is  hopeless  without  the  elimination  of 
Mr.  Gompers.  His  carefully  written,  deliberate 
reply  to  Governor  Allen,  that  Labor  stands  for  the 
unlimited  right  to  strike,  as  a  measure  of  5£//-defense 
and  .^//-advancement  (the  italics  are  mine),  and  his 
public  pledge  that  labor  intends  to  vote  that  way 
also;  his  cynical  ultimatum  that  "the  workers  will 

[258] 


VALEDICTORY 

not  sacrifice  human  progress  for  an  abstraction  that 
is  called  public  welfare  " ;  these  things  and  his  whole 
record  reveal  him  as  a  mere  bandit — pure  and 
simple;  whose  predatory  following  thinks  only  of 
self;  who  styles  their  success  in  holding  up  nine 
tenths  of  the  community  as  "  human  progress  ";  who 
contemptuously  brushes  aside  moral  responsibility 
as  abstract;  but  who,  like  all  bandits,  is  a  fool 
as  well  as  a  robber. 

"Whom  the  gods  would  destroy  they  first  drive 
mad."  When  Mr.  Gompers  insolently  uses  "  man- 
datory terms "  to  a  nation  of  an  hundred  million 
people,  on  the  strength  of  a  supposed  following  of 
perhaps  two  million  voters,  he  reveals  a  much  over- 
rated schemer,  who  has  had  his  head  turned,  and  is 
riding  for  a  fall.  He  ought  to  be  repudiated  by 
Labor  in  its  own  interest  He  will  not  be,  however, 
apparently;  and  the  Convention  of  the  A.  F.  L.  now 
in  session  at  Montreal  will  probably  authorize  his 
battle  of  the  unions  against  the  United  States,  which 
I  forecasted  in  1912,  and  which  I  repeat  can  have 
but  one  ultimate  issue.  Mr.  Gompers  has  so  far  suc- 
cessfully fought  the  "One  Big  Union"  idea;  but 
there  remains  another  too  big  for  him  to  tackle, 
namely,  the  "Union,  now  and  forever,  one  and 
inseparable." 

Meantime,  oh,  patient  readers,  when  you  seriously 
sum  up  all  these  things;  whether  from  the  inspiring 
viewpoint  of  virile  and  useful  citizenship,  of  honest 
industry  and  thrift  for  self-support  and  the  common 
good,  of  the  skilled  workman's  love  for  and  pride 
in  his  craft,  of  unselfish  respect  for  other  men's  right 
to  life,  liberty,  and  pursuit  of  happiness;  from  the 
average  man's  viewpoint  of  common  sense  and  de- 
cent respect  for  the  experience  of  mankind;  from  the 
statesman's  and  economist's  viewpoint  of  good  gov- 

[259] 


LABOR   IN    POLITICS 

ernment  and  efficient  industry;  or,  finally,  from  the 
comparatively  sordid  viewpoint  of  the  taxpayer: 

When  you  realize  the  petty  selfishness  of  Mr. 
Gompers'  ethics,  the  stupidity  of  his  economics,  the 
criminality  of  his  methods,  the  failure  of  his  pro- 
gram to  benefit  a  human  being  other  than  himself 
and  his  kind;  and  finally,  the  menace  of  his  politics 
to  free  government,  and  the  colossal  bureaucracy 
that  his  proposals  would  entail  both  on  labor  and 
the  state ;  you  will,  I  am  sure,  stand  with  me  solidly 
against  labor  autocracy,  and  for  constitutional  gov- 
ernment. 

And,  too,  I  believe  that  you  will  stand  with  me 
sooner  or  later  for  just  as  little  government  of  any 
kind  as  is  consistent  with  the  orderly  civilized  life  of 
a  free  people. 


[260] 


POSTSCRIPT 

REPUBLICAN   AND   DEMOCRATIC   AND   AMERICAN 
FEDERATION  OF  LABOR  CONVENTIONS  OF   1920 

SINCE  the  last  chapter  was  written  the  Republican 
Party  Convention  at  Chicago,  the  Democratic  Party 
Convention  at  San  Francisco,  and  the  A.  F.  L.  Con- 
vention of  1920  at  Montreal  have  all  been  held; 
and  it  is  worth  while  to  note  in  a  postscript  their 
reactions  on  each  other. 

The   Republican  Platform  discussed  Labor    (in 
brief)  as  follows: 

Recognized  the  justice  of  Collective  Bargaining  as  a 
means  of  promoting  harmony,  etc.,  between  labor 
and  capital. 

Denied  the  right  to  strike  against  the  government. 

Thinks  "  government  initiative  "  to  reduce  frequency  of 
strikes  and  lockouts,  and  limit  their  consequences, 
desirable. 

Favors  investigatory  machinery  in  public  utility  labor 
troubles,  to  "  inform  public  sentiment "  to  the  end 
that  there  may  be  "no  organized  interruption  of 
public  service " ;  same  not  to  function  so  long  as 
service  is  interrupted. 

Discountenances  compulsory  arbitration  in  private  labor 
troubles ;  but  favors  "  better  facilities  for  voluntary 
arbitration  "  established  by  government  initiative. 

Opposes  government  ownership. 

Excludes  convict  labor  products  from  interstate  com- 
merce. 

Evidently  the  Republican  Party  would  cater  to  the 
public  rebellion  against  Labor  that  swept  Coolidge 

[261] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

into  nomination  for  the  Vice  Presidency;  and  yet  — 
not  too  successfully  —  seem  sympathetic  to  the  "as- 
pirations of  labor."  Of  course  Mr.  Gompers  is  not 
at  all  fooled  or  content;  and  comes  back  at  Mon- 
treal with  various  declarations  of  war  on  the  Repub- 
lican Party;  entirely  confirming  my  prognostications 
in  previous  pages.  His  Convention  came  pretty  near 
offering  its  heart  and  hand  to  the  Democrats;  but 
he  managed  to  hold  it  in  line  for  non-partisan  action, 
and  against  a  Labor  Party.  It  took  action,  which 
will  be  briefed  a  page  or  two  further  on. 

When  the  Democrats  met  at  San  Francisco  two 
weeks  after  the  Montreal  Convention  of  the  A.  F.  L. 
they  passed  on  the  labor  planks  submitted  by  Mr. 
Gompers,  who  was  there,  just  about  as  evasively  as 
the  Republicans  had  done.  This  is  what  they  said 
(following  the  order  of  the  Republican  discussion, 
as  above  briefed)  : 

Labor  "has  the  indefeasible  right  of  organization,  of 
collective  bargaining,  and  of  speaking  through  rep- 
resentatives of  their  own  selection." 

Labor  "  should  not  at  any  time  .  .  .  put  in  jeopardy 
the  public  welfare." 

"With  respect  to  government  service  —  the  rights  of 
the  people  are  paramount  to  the  right  to  strike " ; 
but  there  is  no  objection  to  a  raid  on  the  public 
treasury  "  to  bring  salaries  to  a  just  and  proper  level." 

"  The  Democratic  Party  pledges  itself  to  contrive,  if  pos- 
sible, and  put  into  effective  operation  a  fair  and  com- 
prehensive method  of  composing  "  labor  differences. 

"  In  private  industrial  disputes  we  are  opposed  to  com- 
pulsory arbitration,  .  .  .  as  plausible  in  theory  but 
a  failure  in  fact." 

"  There  should  be  ...  a  thoroughly  effective  system  of 
transportation  under  private  ownership  without  gov- 
ernment subsidy  at  the  expense  of  the  taxpayers." 

"  Labor  is  not  a  commodity ;  it  is  human.  Laws  regu- 
[262] 


POSTSCRIPT 

lating  hours  of  labor  and  conditions,  .  .  .  when 
passed  in  recognition  of  the  conditions  under  which 
life  must  be  lived,  ...  are  just  assertions  of  national 
interest  in  the  welfare  of  the  people.  .  .  .  Justice  shall 
be  done  to  those  who  work,  and  in  turn  those  whose 
labor  creates  the  necessities  "  of  life  must  "  recognize 
the  reciprocal  obligation  between  the  workers  and  the 
state." 

There  is  a  lot  more  carefully  foggy  language  of 
the  same  kind  intended  to  "hit  if  a  deer,  and  miss 
if  a  calf";  but  on  the  whole  Mr.  Gompers  has  got 
nothing  very  definite  out  of  either  of  the  great  Party 
Platforms,  except  an  expression  from  both  political 
groups  of  willingness  to  raid  the  public  treasury  for 
labor's  benefit;  and  to  create  a  government  central- 
ized arbitration  and  conciliation  machinery  which 
will  "recognize"  Organized  Labor  as  the  main  party 
to  all  labor  disputes;  without,  however,  backing  the 
new  machinery  with  any  power  to  enforce  its  awards 
on  anybody.  One  more  addition  to  bureaucracy  at 
Washington  would,  of  course,  be  repugnant  to  no 
party  politician  on  either  side;  there  would  be  some 
good-sized  jobs  in  it  for  good  party  men. 

The  A.  F.  L.  Convention  adjourned  before  the 
San  Francisco  Convention  began.  Its  record  was  in 
brief  as  follows : 

JUNE  15. 

Backed  Boston  police  strikers  and  promised  to  work  for 
their  reinstatement. 

Backed  New  York  longshore  strikers  for  "  closed  shop  " 
in  the  harbor  and  seacoast  transportation  employ- 
ments. 

Demanded  repeal  of  the  Esch-Cummins  Act,  restoring 
railroads,  etc. 

Voted  against  recognition  of  Soviet  Russia  by  the  United 
States. 

[263] 


LABOR    IN   POLITICS 

JUNE  16. 

Demanded  absolute  and  immediate  curb  on  profiteering. 

Backed  Gompers'  non-partisan  plan.     No  Labor  Party. 

Approved  Irish  Republic. 

Would  exclude  Asiatic  labor;  though  not  for  race, 
religion,  or  color. 

Authorized  campaign  to  unionize  steel  and  telephone 
industries. 

Condemned  "outlaw"  railroad  strikers  as  "secessionists." 

Declared  war  on  Kansas  Industrial  Court. 
JUNE  17. 

Demanded  government  ownership  and  "  democratic  op- 
eration "  of  railroads,  in  this  deserting  Gompers ; 
who  opposed  turning  over  to  government  the  power 
to  keep  railroad  men  at  work.  Frey,  supporting 
Gompers,  said  that  there  is  growing  in  this  country 
an  idea  that  the  "welfare  of  the  state  is  superior  to 
the  right  of  individuals "  —  an  idea  "  believed  in 
Germany." 

Raised  salaries  from  Gompers  down  (against  his  pro- 
test) of  Labor  bureaucracy. 

Demanded  Government  Employment  Bureau  as  part  of 
Department  of  Labor. 

Authorized  Executive  Council  to  fight  all  "  speed  up  " 
and  "  efficiency  "  systems,  especially  in  postal  service. 

Pledged  support  to  civil  service  employees  in  resisting 
demotion. 

Declared  right  of  free  speech  and  assembly  to  be  in- 
alienable, not  to  be  limited  by  any  judge  or  adminis- 
tration. 

Condemned  military  training  as  un-American. 

Voted  moral  support  to  striking  fur  workers. 

Defeated  motion  to  elect  Federation  officers  by  popular 
vote  of  whole  Federation. 

Defeated    Initiative    and    Referendum    (proposed    for 
future  questions)  to  whole  membership  of  Federation 
on  demand  of  five  per  cent  of  unions. 
JUNE  18. 

Triumphantly  reflected  Mr.  Gompers  President  for  the 
39th  time. 

[264] 


PARTY  AND  LABOR  CONVENTIONS 

Here  is  the  contrast  between  Labor  and  Polit- 
ical Leaders  sharply  outlined.  Labor  true  to  form, 
definite,  defiant,  out  for  centralized  industrial  and 
political  power;  the  politicians,  also  true  to  form, 
timid,  straddling,  waiting  for  the  people  to  show 
them  the  way  even  more  decisively  than  they  have 
already  shown  it,  —  afflicted  with  that  bureaucratic, 
collectivist  tendency  to  meddle  with  business,  that 
has  clouded  our  politics  for  a  generation. 

There  exists  today  a  Labor  Trust  bigger  and  richer 
than  most  of  the  Wall  Street  Trusts,  with  concen- 
trated wealth  and  power  such  as  the  American 
people  has  always  jealously  guarded  against;  and  a 
record  of  destructive  achievement  entirely  foreign  to 
Wall  Street,  which  last  we  called  down  years  ago. 
Why  do  we  not  call  down  the  Labor  Trust  now? 

Not  one  word  to  that  effect  appears,  however,  in 
the  Republican  Platform,  though  Governor  Coolidge 
was  nominated  for  Vice  President  with  a  spontane- 
ous rush  because  he  did  call  labor  down.  Dodging 
the  subject  will  not  placate  Gompers,  nor  strengthen 
the  platform. 

Let  me  reiterate  once  more,  to  the  point  of  bore- 
dom, I  fear,  that  it  is  not  collective  bargaining  with 
their  own  employees  that  employers  object  to;  on 
the  contrary,  many  favor  it.  It  is  the  cross-union- 
izing of  all  workers,  not  by  employments,  but  by 
trades  and  regions,  and  the  development  of  the  gos- 
pel of  sloth,  that  employers  hate;  the  integration  of 
many  local  trades-unions  into  national  and  interna- 
tional bodies;  and  the  final  federation  of  the  latter 
into  one  great  labor  trust,  which,  like  a  huge  cancer, 
roots  into  every  utility  and  factory  in  the  land,  that 
employers  dread;  that  centralization  which  Gom- 
pers so  persistently  fights  for;  that  concentration  of 
power,  that  does  the  mischief. 

[265] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

j 

It  is  the  vast  concatenation  of  organization  that 
supplies  millions  of  possible  votes,  and  millions  of 
dollars  wherewith  to  pay  an  hundred  thousand 
manufacturers  of  labor  unrest  and  gatherers-in  of 
yet  more  and  more  deluded  voters  and  their  good 
dollars.  It  is  that  endless  -propagation  of  labor  in- 
fection against  which  no  employer  can  quarantine 
entirely  that  makes  the  disease  endemic.  And  it  is 
the  perfectly  useless  blunder,  though  perhaps  inevit- 
able so  long  as  the  carriers  of  the  germs  are  uncon- 
trolled, of  government  meddling  with  employers 
and  strikers,  at  haphazard  here  and  there,  that 
spreads  tine  contagion  from  industry  into  politics; 
to  our  eternal  political  undoing,  if  we  do  not  mend 
our  ways. 

Think  of  it,  gentlemen;  a  few  days  ago  Mr.  Gom- 
pers  opened  his  debate  with  Governor  Allen  at  Car- 
negie Hall  by  announcing,  with  a  flourish  of  trum- 
pets, that  the  "  longshore "  strikers  in  New  York 
Harbor  were  ready  to  accept  arbitration  of  govern- 
ment in  that  disastrous  dispute.  A  day  or  two  later 
the  papers  contained  a  telegram  from  Captain 
Maher,  the  longshore  labor  leader,  announcing  that 
the  Attorney  General  (Palmer)  had  decided  that 
the  Adamson  Law  should  apply  to  railroad  tugs  and 
car-floats  at  New  York;  that  this  would  end  the 
strike,  and  that  freedom  of  commerce  would  soon 
prevail  at  that  great  port  —  whereat  great  rejoicing! 

You  will  recall  that  the  Erie  Railroad  had  sold 
some  of  its  surplus  tugs  to  a  private  non-union  tow- 
ing company;  which  worked  its  fleet  more  than  the 
eight-hour  day  called  for  by  the  Adamson  Law,  but 
apparently  continued  to  do  some  towing  for  the  Erie 
Railroad;  and  that  in  consequence  a  strike  was  de- 
clared in  order  to  discipline  this  outsider  of  all  the 
marine  workers  around  New  York  Harbor,  —  some 

[266] 


PARTY  AND  LABOR  CONVENTIONS 

70,000  I  think,  tying  up  a  large  part  of  the  com- 
merce of  all  the  railroads  and  steamship  lines  of  the 
greatest  port  of  the  United  States;  which  has  cost, 
according  to  an  estimate  recently  published,  a  loss 
of  85  million  dollars;  and  which,  called  by  one  par- 
ticular member  of  the  Gompers  concatenation,  at 
one  time  threatened,  so  said  Mr.  Maher,  to  involve 
all  the  Eastern  railroads  in  a  general  strike. 

Think  of  it  once  more,  gentlemen!  It  is  absurd 
to  the  point  of  grotesqueness,  that  a  single  railroad 
terminating  at  New  York  cannot  employ  a  tugman 
who  chooses  to  work  longer  than  eight  hours  a  day 
(as  both  he  and  the  railroad  should  have  unques- 
tioned constitutional  right  to  do)  and  itself  alone 
stand  the  consequences  of  any  disagreement  with  its 
own  men  resulting;  but  its  perfectly  lawful  action 
must  involve  every  road,  every  shipper  in  that  ex- 
traordinary harbor,  perfectly  unoffending  though  it 
or  he  may  be,  in  helpless  paralysis;  must  cause  con- 
gestion of  railway  traffic,  shortage  of  food  and  milk 
supply,  and  interruption  of  ocean  commerce,  extend- 
ing to  every  port  on  the  Atlantic  Coast  and  abroad 
—  all  for  the  most  local  and  limited  of  petty  dis- 
putes I  Nothing  under  heaven  is  blamable  for  such 
vast  and  unpardonable  wrong  but  the  Gompers  con- 
catenation, and  the  bought-and-sold  Adamson  Law. 

Of  course,  in  the  face  of  such  a  blow  at  modern 
life  and  commercial  freedom,  under  the  very  eyes 
of  the  statue  of  Miss  Liberty,  there  in  New  York 
Harbor,  government  had  to  interfere,  or  be  held 
to  severe  account  by  the  people;  but  think  a  little 
further,  gentlemen,  of  the  utter  absurdity  of  the 
necessity  of  a  pilgrimage  to  Washington,  for  such  a 
puny  cause,  of  a  host  of  representatives  not  only  of 
the  labor  trust  and  the  railroads,  but  of  suffering 
shippers,  the  city,  the  Chamber  of  Commerce, — 

[267] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

perhaps  they  were  not  all  there  this  time,  but  they 
have  been  in  other  cases,  —  taking  up  the  over- 
crowded time  of  the  Attorney  General  of  the  United 
States  with  a  purely  private  and  insignificant  dis- 
pute; while  meantime  the  commerce  of  that  great 
metropolis  and  the  whole  seaboard  was  throttled  in 
a  "  head-lock  "  such  as  Evan  Lewis,  the  Strangler, 
uses  to  bend  a  Zbyszko  to  the  mat!  Is  not  the  whole 
situation  too  unthinkable?  Is  free  America  never 
to  be  quarantined  against  the  typhus  of  discontent, 
the  sleeping  sickness  of  sloth?  Is  the  tumor  never 
to  be  cut  out?  Are  the  tentacles  of  the  Octopus 
never  to  be  severed?  (Choose  whichever  of  these 
metaphors  most  appeals  to  your  imagination  or 
wrath,  gentlemen;  for  I  would  not  incautiously  mix 
them.) 

Let  me  sing  once  more  the  song  of  DECENTRAL- 
IZATION. It  has  done  labor  no  good  to  centralize ; 
but  the  contrary,  for  forty  years.  It  has  gravely  in- 
jured commerce,  politics,  and  the  silent  suffering 
public.  CUT  IT  OUT!  Leave  men  free  to  organize 
or  not  as  they  choose,  to  deal  direct  with  their  own 
employer  or  strike,  as  they  will.  But  leave  the  rest 
of  us  free  to  go  our  busy  way.  THAT  MUST  BE  JUS- 
TICE, LIBERTY,  AND  COMMON  SENSE.  To  change 
Lord  Dufferin's  remark,  quoted  elsewhere,  a  little 
—  we  Americans  are  a  practical  people.  Why 
don't  we  back  up  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
and  the  Rights  of  Man;  andgovern  these  labor  trusts? 

Gentlemen  of  the  press,  study  well  the  results  of 
purely  workingman's  government  in  Russia,  Aus- 
tralia, and  New  Zealand.  Study  the  creeping  pa- 
ralysis with  which  Labor  in  politics  is  crippling 
England  at  home  and  abroad  today.  Then,  see 
to  it  that  here  in  our  beloved  America  no  man  shall 
successfully  organize  CLASS  against  COUNTRY! 

[268] 


APPENDIX 

AN   OPEN   LETTER 

CAMBRIDGE,  MASS.,  Nov.  n,  1918. 

MR.  SAMUEL  GOMPERS, 

President  American  Federation  of  Labor, 
Washington,  D.  C. 

Dear  Sir :  —  When  I  commenced  this  letter,  a  month  ago 
today,  you  were  in  historic  Rome,  the  recipient  there  of  the 
same  distinguished  honors  that  had  just  been  paid  you  in  the 
great  capitals  of  London  and  Paris  —  perhaps  the  greatest 
ever  paid  to  one  calling  himself  a  workingman.  There  can 
be  no  mistaking  the  reason  for  these  honors  to  yourself  and  to 
American  Organized  Labor,  which  you  represented.  They 
were  due  to  belief  in  your  patriotism,  and  that  of  Organized 
Labor,  in  giving  largest  service  to  your  country  and  the  world. 
At  the  moment  of  the  supremest  opportunity  to  hold  up  indus- 
try for  selfish  advantage  that  is  ever  likely  to  present  itself, 
American  Organized  Labor,  under  your  leadership,  detesting 
with  all  its  free  heart  German  autocracy,  militarism,  greed, 
and  cruelty,  has  stood  to  its  tools,  to  use  your  own  words,  in 
"  continuous  full-power  production,"  for  Liberty  and  Law 
and  the  Welfare  of  Mankind. 

Today  the  war  is  won.  You  are  back  in  your  own  country 
telling  your  constituents  with  pride  of  your  and  their  share 
in  the  victory.  Will  you,  at  this  significant  moment,  permit 
an  inconspicuous,  disinterested,  retired  ex-employer  of  labor 
to  direct  your  busy  thought,  not  too  far  in  advance,  he  hopes, 
to  the  continuing  and  perhaps  in  the  long  run  equally  great 
opportunity  for  patriotism  that  confronts  labor,  now  that  the 
war  is  over  —  an  opportunity  which  no  man  can  do  more  to 
avail  of  than  yourself  —  that  of  establishing  for  all  time,  as 
a  dominating  working  principle,  complete  and  hearty  coopera- 

[269] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

tion  between  Organized  Labor  and  Capital  for  that  same 
"  continuous  full-power  production  "  ?  Believe  me,  sir,  it  is 
and  must  always  be,  in  peace  as  well  as  in  war  time,  the  prin- 
ciple of  patriotism,  of  greatest  service  to  all ;  to  labor  itself, 
before  all. 

We  Americans  are  busy  people;  working  for  our  daily 
bread,  and  slow  to  comprehend  the  evil  that  moral  poison 
can  work  in  the  hearts  of  men  and  nations.  It  is  only  in  the 
last  year  or  two  that  Organized  Labor,  like  most  of  us,  came 
to  realize  the  German  menace  impending  on  the  world,  and  to 
make  up  its  mind,  again  to  use  your  words,  "  that  Prussian 
autocracy,  militarism,  and  irresponsible  diplomacy  must  per- 
ish." Has  it  not  of  late  occurred  to  you,  sir,  that  all  au- 
tocracy, militarism,  and  irresponsibility,  your  own  for  instance, 
ought  also  to  perish,  and  probably  will,  at  the  appointed  time  ? 
Have  you  ever  stopped  to  think  how  frankly  Prussian  are  the 
principles  and  methods  of  Organized  Labor,  as  witnessed  by  its 
long  record ;  even  by  your  own  Annual  Report  for  the  current 
year,  side  by  side  with  its  burning  denunciation  of  the  Hun  ? 

Let  me,  without  rancor,  set  down  in  plain  words  the  par- 
allel, so  that  he  who  runs  may  read. 

Autocracy.  "  Labor  Omnia  Vincit,"  are  the  first  words 
printed  on  the  outside  cover  of  the  Annual  Report  of  the 
A.  F.  L.  —  apparently  its  "  slogan."  You  stand  first  of  all 
for  the  autocracy  of  the  Union,  for  its  domination  of  the 
union  man,  its  monopoly  of  the  right  to  work ;  for  the  "  closed 
shop."  You  say  to  the  free  workingman,  join  the  Union ;  to 
the  employer,  "  recognize  "  the  Union.  To  both,  that  if  they 
obey,  the  Union  will  protect  them;  if  not,  no  mere  rights 
asserted  by  Courts  will  be  respected.  The  non-union  man 
and  employer  have  no  rights,  no  liberties.  Organized  Labor 
omnia  vincit. 

Just  so,  Germany's  creed  was  DEUTSCHLAND  UEBER 
ALLES  ;  the  domination  of  the  German  State,  world 
domination,  tyranny  —  no  self-determination  of  weaker  peo- 
ples. She  said  to  the  Alsatian,  the  Pole,  and  the  Belgian, 
forget  your  race  and  liberty;  be  good  Germans,  and  Ger- 
many will  govern  you  better  than  you  can  govern  yourselves. 
Otherwise,  take  the  consequences. 

Propaganda.  Your  Constitution  opens  with  the  following 
[270] 


APPENDIX 

words:  "Whereas,  a  struggle  is  going  on  in  all  the  nations 
of  the  civilized  world  between  the  oppressors  and  the  op- 
pressed of  all  countries;  a  struggle  between  the  capitalist 
and  the  laborer,  which  will  work  disastrous  results  to  the 
toiling  millions,  if  not  combined  for  mutual  protection,"  etc. 
That  is  to  say,  if  I  save  my  money,  build  a  factory  or  railroad, 
and  offer  you  a  job  of  work,  I  am  an  oppressor.  If  after 
shopping  around  among  other  jobs  you  like  mine  the  best, 
you  are  oppressed.  The  process  of  shopping  around  is  a  strug- 
gle, which  will  result  in  the  disaster  of  employment  and  earn- 
ing your  living,  unless  you  join  a  union  to  prevent. 

Now,  nobody  knows  better  than  the  astute  President  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
more  and  bigger  employers  there  are  to  offer  a  laboring  man 
his  choice  of  jobs,  the  better  for  the  man.  Indeed,  the  more 
the  oppressors,  the  merrier  the  oppressed,  and  the  greater  the 
disaster,  or  wages.  In  Darkest  Africa,  where  there  are  no 
capitalists,  factories,  or  railroads — in  short,  no  oppressors; 
in  India  and  China,  where  they  are  few,  wages  do  not  exist 
or  are  pitifully  small,  poverty  is  beyond  belief,  and  famine 
and  pestilence  constantly  impend.  Standards  of  living  are 
so  low  that  your  Federation  vigorously  fights  the  "  yellow 
peril "  of  Oriental  immigration  to  prevent  their  introduction 
here. 

Of  course,  this  lurid  rhetoric  of  "  oppressor  "  and  "  op- 
pressed "  is  mere  camouflage;  union  propaganda  for  the  un- 
thinking; intended  to  stir  up  r/ajs-consciousness,  to  create  a 
spirit  of  c/flw-hostility ;  here  in  this  free  country  where  we 
have  no  "  classes,"  or  rather  where  we  boast  that  any  man 
can  rise  to  any  class  his  powers  permit. 

Just  so  the  Kaiser  and  the  Krupps  for  fifty  years  faked  a 
bogey  of  invasion  from  France,  from  Russia,  even  from  un- 
preparing  England ;  faked  a  menace  to  the  very  life  of  the 
German  state;  chanted  the  Hymn  of  Hate  to  arm  the  Ger- 
man people  against  the  world ;  preached  the  gospel  of  attack 
as  the  best  defense;  all,  as  we  have  learned  to  our  sorrow, 
for  th  3  benefit  of  the  fakers  only. 

Militarism.  For  its  deliberately  provoked  "  industrial 
warfare  "  your  Federation  has  built  up  a  highly  centralized 
and  powerful  striking  machine  (see  Report),  skillfuly  dis- 

[271] 


LABOR    IN   POLITICS 

posed  to  work  at  the  desired  moment  a  strangle-hold  on  indus- 
try, local,  state,  or  national  as  the  exigency  requires;  for  the 
coercion  of  capital,  pure  and  simple,  yet  always  as  a  measure 
of  defense,  against  "  oppression." 

Even  so,  Germany  built  up  for  "  defense  "  the  most  colos- 
sally  aggressive  military  establishment  of  all  time,  basing  on 
it  the  Mittel-Europa  and  Pan-German  imperial  designs. 

Predatory  Purpose.  Your  intent  is  frankly  predatory:  to 
take  from  capital  by  force  of  organization  more  pay  for  the 
same  or  less  work  than  is  obtainable  under  ordinary  condi- 
tions of  free  supply  and  demand  in  the  labor  market.  One 
hundred  and  ninety-nine  Unions  proudly  claim  in  your  Report 
to  have  accomplished  this.  Your  method  is  to  introduce  or- 
ganizers among  a  force  of  workmen,  "secretly  —  of  course" 
(see  Report,  page  87),  accomplish  organization,  call  a  strike 
if  necessary,  throw  around  a  picket  line,  "  peacefully  per- 
suade "  applicants  for  work  to  stay  away,  call  them  "  scab  " 
or  perhaps  slug  them  if  they  will  not  obey;  sometimes  a 
"  wrecking  crew  "  spoils  work  or  dynamites  a  plant. 

So  Germany,  with  frankly  predatory  intent  to  take  by  force 
from  France,  Belgium,  Russia,  Serbia,  especially  from  "  rob- 
ber" England,  territory,  indemnities,  mines,  colonies,  a 
"  place  in  the  sun,"  as  Bismarck  said,  "  not  by  speeches  and 
treaties,  but  by  blood  and  iron,"  set  to  work  its  spy-system 
and  propaganda  all  over  the  world,  created  its  casus  belli, 
mobilized  its  huge  armies,  drew  its  U-boat  lines  around  the 
open  seas,  "  peacefully  persuaded  neutral  nations  not  to  cross 
those  lines,  sunk  their  ships  if  they  did,  violated  law  and 
treaties,  stopped  at  no  outrage  to  coerce  and  loot  the  world. 

I  am  well  aware  that  Germany  pleaded  "  military  neces- 
sity "  for  violating  Belgium ;  and  that  Organized  Labor 
pleads  similar  necessity  of  the  picket  line  —  that  is,  the 
actual  physical  presence  of  an  organized  force  to  prevent  by 
words  or  maybe  blows  the  free  and  natural  action  of  supply 
and  demand  in  determining  the  flow  and  fixing  the  wage  of 
labor  —  in  order  to  win  most  strikes,  and  force  wages  above 
their  natural  commercial  level.  Like  von  Herding  you  say, 
"  It  is  regrettable,  but  this  is  industrial  war;  and  all  is  fair 
in  war."  Your  constant  effort  to  modify  the  law,  so  as  to 
legalize  the  picket  line;  your  open  political  hostility  to  judge 

[272] 


APPENDIX 

after  judge  who  has  ruled  against  it,  establishes  your  Organ- 
ized Labor's  willful  breach  of  law  better  than  any  word  of 
mine  can.  A  generation  ago  Allan  Pinkerton  testified  in  the 
Mollie  Maguire  trials  that  "  Organized  Labor  is  organized 
violence,"  and  you  yourself  were  credited  by  a  New  York 
paper  a  few  years  ago  with  the  remark  "A  strike  without 
violence  is  a  joke."  Of  course,  you  deny  acts  of  violence; 
but  you  put  up  the  cash,  as  in  the  Los  Angeles  Times  dyna- 
miting case,  to  defend  union  men  caught  and  indicted  for 
such  acts. 

Doubtless  such  methods  are  necessary  to  win ;  but  do  you 
think  that  the  great  free,  fair-minded,  non-unionized  90  per 
cent  of  the  American  people,  when  they  put  their  mind  on 
the  subject,  will  stand  for  Prussianism  at  home  any  more 
than  in  Belgium? 

Irresponsibility.  Of  minor  importance,  but  characteristi- 
cally Prussian,  is  your  irresponsibility.  Union  contracts  are 
never  backed  by  Union  funds;  and  the  latter  are  as  far  as 
possible  kept  out  of  reach  of  court  process  by  the  expedient  of 
non-incorporation  of  the  Unions.  For  years  your  Federation 
has  worked,  lately  with  some  success,  for  the  enactment  of 
laws  upsetting  the  old  established  rule  that  human  labor  is 
property  for  which  the  laborer  may  contract,  the  right  in 
which  may  be  protected  by  ;he  Courts.  Your  object  in  the 
new  legislation,  already  held  unconstitutional  in  several  in- 
stances, seems  to  be  greater  irresponsibility,  as  nearly  as  I  can 
understand  it ;  to  protect  yourselves  from  damage  suits  by  rea- 
son of  Union  acts  in  breaking  up  trained  and  balanced  work- 
ing forces,  in  creating  which  employers  have  spent  much 
time  and  money ;  and  in  which  they  have  an  actually  valuable 
working  asset,  similar  to  the  "  good  will "  of  an  established 
trade.  Union  men  have  always  repudiated  Union  agreements 
when  they  felt  like  it;  the  leaders  simply  saying  they  could 
not  hold  the  men  —  which  was  true,  and  an  end  of  the  agree- 
ments. 

Just  so  German  treaties  were  mere  scraps  of  paper.  Today 
her  signature  must  be  guaranteed. 

Sloth.  Another  minor  matter,  but  quite  without  any  Ger- 
man parallel,  I  think: 

I  do  not  refer  to  the  8-hour  movement,  or  to  the  "five 

[273] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

days,  five  hours,  five  dollars "  talk  one  hears  occasionally;  but 
to  your  hostility  to  Taylor-Emerson  and  like  systems  for 
speeding  up  production,  the  essence  of  which  is  the  determina- 
tion by  careful  experiment  of  the  reasonable  maximum  produc- 
tion that  can  be  required  of  a  man  on  any  given  job,  without 
overworking  him  —  which  last  is  held  by  the  authors  of 
the  system  to  be  fatal  to  quantity  and  quality  alike.  You 
have  succeeded  in  getting  the  Government,  always  an  "  easy 
mark  "  as  an  employer,  spending  the  taxpayers'  money  with 
an  eye  to  votes  rather  than  production,  to  shut  out  any  speed- 
ing up  upon  government  work.  You  consistently  fight  full 
production  in  all  collective  bargaining.  Apparently  your  idea 
is  that  so  there  will  be  more  union  men  needed  to  do  the 
same  amount  of  work  in  every  plant ;  to  the  ultimate  advan- 
tage of  union  labor.  For  the  same  reason  you  fight  piece- 
work, and  bonus  plans  to  induce  fast  men  to  work  fast  by 
earning  more. 

Mischief-Making.  Can  you  see,  sir,  the  family  likeness 
between  the  dirty  work  of  the  German  spy-system  in  stirring 
up  trouble  for  the  United  States  with  Mexico,  Japan,  Nica- 
ragua, and  other  nations  at  peace  with  us  and  each  other ;  and 
Organized  Labor's  tortuous  trickery  in  calling  the  boycott, 
the  sympathetic  strike,  perhaps  the  general  strike  involv- 
ing innocent  third  parties,  even  the  entire  public,  in  unde- 
served suffering  for  Labor's  own  selfish  advantage  ?  It  seems 
to  me  the  American  people  will  see  it,  when  they  stop  to 
think  of  it. 

Class  Legislation.  Your  constitution  sets  forth  this  among 
other  objects:  "to  secure  legislation  in  the  interest  of  the 
working  classes."  Your  Report  threatens  legislators  and 
judges  with  the  labor  vote;  with  loss  of  office  unless  they 
make  and  interpret  laws  to  suit  you.  The  same  threat  has 
often  been  made,  and  sometimes  been  effective.  The  passage 
of  the  Adamson  Law  just  before  the  last  presidential  election, 
in  trade  for  or  under  threat  of  the  labor  vote,  combined  with 
threat  of  a  general  railway  strike,  is  a  conspicuous  instance 
which  called  forth  widespread  and  indignant  comment  at  the 
time.  Your  Report  indicates  your  procurement  of  the  pro- 
visions of  the  Clayton  Act,  and  the  Hughes  Amendment  to 
the  Judicial  Appropriation  Act,  exempting  Organized  Labor 

[274] 


APPENDIX 

from  the  operation  of  the  Sherman  Law  against  combination 
in  restraint  of  trade.  It  censures  the  U.  S.  Supreme  Court 
for  protecting  Hitchman  against  emissaries  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers,  who  sought  to  induce  his  non-union  contract 
workmen  secretely  to  organize  and  break  their  contracts  by  a 
strike ;  it  scores  the  District  Court  for  insisting  in  the  Coro- 
nada  Coal  case  that  the  jury  should  find  a  verdict  on  the  facts 
(they  did  award  $200,000  damages  against  the  Union  for 
conspiring  with  union  mine-owners  to  block  production  and 
sale  on  non-union  coal)  ;  that  the  jury  should  "  do  the  right 
thing  as  you  see  it,"  and  not  put  all  parties  to  the  delay  and  ex- 
pense of  a  new  trial  by  dodging  a  verdict.  Your  Report  says 
in  commenting  on  these  cases  that  "  the  relief  from  such  de- 
cisions lies  not  only  in  legislation,  but  in  educating  public 
opinion  and  changing  the  personnel  of  the  Judiciary  so  as  to 
secure  judges  who  understand  economic  problems  and  forces." 

You  probably  meant  judges  who  understand  political  prob- 
lems and  forces;  but  do  you  seriously  think  that,  when  the 
issue  of  the  People  vs.  the  Unions  is  made  up  and  thrashed 
out  you  can  educate  American  voters  to  reject  lawmakers 
and  judges  because  they  will  not  stand  for  clan  legislation? 
No  German  parallel  here  either.  Germany  did  not  worry 
much  about  public  opinion  in  class  questions. 

Let  me  turn  now  to  the  achievements  of  your  organiza- 
tion as  shown  in  your  Report. 

Growth.  Your  Federation  claims  2,726,478  members. 
With  the  railway  unions,  I.  W.  W.,  Knights,  and  other  or- 
ganizations, there  may  be  a  total  of  3,500,000  union  men  and 
women.  This  is  a  very  considerable  number ;  yet  it  is  but  say 
a  thirtieth  part  of  our  population,  and  say  a  tenth  part  of 
our  wage-working  people, — actually  a  small  minority,  though, 
in  present  circumstances,  enough  to  turn  an  election,  if  its  solid 
vote  could  be  delivered.  However,  nine  tenths  of  our  com- 
mercial, common,  farm,  and  domestic  labor  are  entirely 
unorganized,  and  are  likely  to  remain  so  by  reason  of  the  in- 
herent difficulty  of  tying  together  so  many  scattered  and 
incoherent  individuals  in  so  wide  a  country.  Moreover,  even 
in  the  cities  a  very  large  body  of  independent  workers  prefer 
liberty  of  action  to  union  control.  This  body  is  likely  to  in- 
crease as  workers  grow  wiser. 

[275] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

Wage  Benefits.  The  detailed  reports  of  some  199  Unions 
embodied  in  your  Report  claim  by  virtue  of  organization 
wage  increases,  difficult  to  analyze  and  tabulate  because  in 
different  form;  but  which  appear  to  average  not  over  one 
hundred  per  cent  (doubled,  that  is)  in  the  last  30  years. 
There  is  no  doubt  that  union  wages  have  so  doubled ;  but  so 
also,  as  it  happens,  have  all  other  wages,  in  the  same  period. 
If  mere  organization  has  raised  the  wages  of  union  men, 
what  has  raised  those  of  ten  times  as  many  totally  unorgan- 
ized laborers;  especially  of  common  laborers,  which  have  ad- 
vanced proportionately  most  of  all?  And  how  is  it  that 
union  wages  differ  for  the  same  trades  in  different  localities 
(a  fact  provided  for  by  your  Federation's  laws),  if  union 
scales  determine  wages?  Is  a  union  printer  more  deserving 
in  New  York  than  in  San  Francisco? 

"  The  tail  can't  wag  the  dog,"  says  the  old  proverb.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  wage  levels  are  determined  by  a  very  different 
factor ;  namely,  national  productivity  of  wealth.  Every  nation 
uses  every  year  substantially  what  it  produces,  or  exchanges  its 
product  for ;  and  conversely  under  the  inexorable  law  of  sup- 
ply and  demand  it  produces  only  what  it  can  use.  In  practice 
people  do  not  go  on  making  stuff  they  cannot  use  or-  sell. 
Therefore  what  we  use  (in  other  words  our  standard  of  liv- 
ing, expressed  in  wages  and  cost  of  living,  whether  high  or 
low)  goes  up  and  down  with  current  annual  production. 
In  capitalistic  countries,  where  machinery  and  organization 
of  industry  are  highly  developed,  production  and  standards 
of  living  are  high ;  higher  in  this  fortunate  country  than  any- 
where else  in  the  world. 

For  instance,  the  Census  Reports  show  that  our  use  of 
motive  power  in  manufacture  rose  from  0.87  H.  P.  per 
man  employed  in  1880  to  2.43  H.  P.  in  1910.  Meantime 
the  value  of  manufactured  product,  including  raw  material, 
rose  from  $1065  Per  annum  per  man  to  $2692.  Our  total 
production  of  wealth  from  farms,  mines,  and  factories,  rose 
in  the  same  years  from  $151  per  capita  of  population  to  $303. 
That  is,  it  substantially  doubled  for  every  man,  woman,  and 
child  in  the  land. 

So  also  wages  and  cost  of  living  substantially  doubled.  In- 
deed they  could  do  nothing  else,  under  the  unchanging  laws 

[276] 


APPENDIX 

of  trade.  When  production  increases  there  is  more  to  go 
around;  more  to  buy,  and  more  to  pay  with.  One  way  or 
another  the  increase  is  sure  to  be  pretty  fairly  distributed 
among  the  producers  and  distributors,  each  in  proportion  to 
his  contribution  to  the  whole  gigantic  work;  like  the  rising 
tide,  that  seeks  always  the  same  level,  but  flows  more  freely 
to  the  broader  channel.  The  old  legend  says  that  King 
Canute  set  his  throne  at  the  water's  edge,  and  forbade  the 
tide  to  rise  past  it.  But  the  tide  rose  all  the  same,  and  the 
King  had  to  move  back,  or  get  his  feet  wet.  Just  exactly  as 
ineffectual  are  the  mandates  of  Organized  Labor  to  control 
wage  levels. 

The  real  cause  of  high  wages  is  not  labor  organization,  but 
labor  shortage.  Their  real  limitation  is  not  the  greed  of  em- 
ployers, but  buyers'  prices  current;  at  which  a  cold-hearted 
and  unsympathetic  public  can  be  depended  on  to  take  the 
goods.  Employers  are  always  between  the  devil  and  the  deep 
sea;  they  must  pay  wages  enough  to  man  their  shops,  or  shut 
down.  They  must  keep  costs  within  selling  prices,  or  "  go 
broke." 

The  futility  of  labor  organization  in  fixing  wages  is  shown 
conclusively  in  quite  another  way.  The  Department  of  Com- 
merce and  Labor  tabulated  the  results  of  Strikes  and  Lockouts 
for  1880  to  1905,  inclusive — unfortunately  not  since  then — 
covering  36,757  strikes,  nine  tenths  of  them  by  unions,  and 
one  tenth  by  unorganized  labor.  The  total  of  days'  labor  lost 
in  them  all  came  to  two  thirds  of  I  per  cent  of  the  full  time 
which  would  have  been  made  had  there  been  no  strikes. 
The  unions  won  or  partly  won  in  65  per  cent  of  their  strikes ; 
and  the  unorganized  strikers  won  or  partly  won  in  44  per 
cent  of  theirs.  The  efficiency  of  union  over  non-union  men 
to  win  a  strike  may  therefore  be  figured  at  the  difference 
between  65  and  44  per  cent,  or  21  per  cent.  But  as  the 
disputes  came  to  the  striking  point  but  two  thirds  of  I  per 
cent  of  the  time,  the  net  value  of  your  huge  labor  organiza- 
tion in  its  own  chosen  field,  winning  strikes,  as  compared  with 
non-organization,  was  actually  21  per  cent  of  two  thirds  of 
i  per  cent,  or  14  one-hundredths  of  one  per  cent,  of  the  total 
wage  involved.  That  minute  fraction  of  each  man's  earn- 
ings would  come  to  less  than  half  a  cent  a  day,  against  union 

[277] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

dues  of  2  cents  a  day;  and  about  2  cents  a  day  lost  in 
striking. 

Sickness  and  Death  Benefits.  Your  Report  shows  a  con- 
siderable sum  paid  back  by  the  unions  to  members  in  Benefits, 
apparently  for  last  year  some  $2,767,751.  This  looks  well 
offhand;  the  Report  does  not,  however,  tell  what  the  mem- 
bers paid  in  for  the  same  year.  As  your  Laws  fix  a  mini- 
mum monthly  due,  apparently,  of  60  cents  per  man,  your 
2,726,478  members  must  have  paid  in  at  least  $19,631,000. 
It  looks  to  an  outsider  as  though  the  difference  of  some 
$16,863,000  must  have  gone  for  running  expenses;  not  a 
very  good  showing,  when  one  considers  that  all  this  expendi- 
ture had  practically  no  effect  whatever  on  wages.  The  vast 
majority  of  our  American  labor,  un-organized,  got  their  ad- 
vance just  the  same,  without  paying  out  a  cent;  while  if  the 
union  members  had  put  their  $19,631,000  into  almost  any 
good  industrial  insurance  company's  policies,  the  benefits  re- 
turned would  have  been  far  greater. 

Short  Hours  and  Improved  Conditions.  I  incline  to  think 
that  your  agitation  for  shorter  hours  has  done  better  for 
your  members  than  your  pressure  for  wage  increases ;  though 
here  again  the  real  enabling  factor  is  increased  productivity 
due  to  increased  use  of  power  and  machinery.  The  constant 
effort  of  the  modern  manufacturer  is  to  increase  output  of  his 
plant  and  reduce  cost  and  prices  to  his  customer,  for  the 
purely  selfish  reason  that  lower  prices  mean  larger  sales,  and 
greater  profits.  His  temptation  is  therefore  to  run  full  time, 
and  overtime  too,  if  his  trade  will  take  his  output.  But,  in 
general,  hours  run  must  conform  to  the  necessary  conditions 
of  each  industry.  The  blast  furnace  must  run  24  hours  a 
day;  the  morning  paper  must  be  printed  at  night;  the  farm 
must  work  daylight  hours  at  certain  seasons.  Probably  your 
wife's  housemaid  works  more  than  8  hours  a  day;  though 
I  trust  that  you  are  consistent,  and  work  two  shifts  at  home. 

But  if  in  any  industry  a  man  or  plant  can  turn  out  as 
much  work  in  8  hours  as  in  10,  why  work  10?  The  laborers' 
wish  for  shorter  hours  is  human,  and  sympathetic  to  every 
one ;  though  not  so  easy  to  arrange  as  a  raise  of  wages.  The 
employer's  true  interest  is  to  ascertain  the  number  of  hours 
per  shift  that  best  suits  the  industry;  the  rate  at  which  each 


APPENDIX 

machine  can  best  be  driven  without  overworking  the  man 
and  thus  breaking  down  his  productive  power;  and  the  fair 
full  output  which  should  be  required  of  him;  and  then 
adjust  conditions  and  wages  so  as  to  attract  and  hold  a  suffi- 
cient supply  of  labor.  Surely  the  workers'  interest  is  exactly 
the  same. 

As  to  working  conditions  Organized  Labor  has  never 
much  concerned  itself,  but  has  left  them  to  the  philanthropists 
and  reformers.  The  Government  Strike  and  Lockout  Report 
above  mentioned,  out  of  36,757  strikes  records  not  one  for 
better  conditions;  while  the  199  union  reports  embodied  in 
your  annual  Report  for  this  year  seldom  mention  or  dwell  on 
working  conditions. 

Productivity.  Unionizing  undoubtedly  reduces  produc- 
tivity, and  to  that  extent  has  been  an  injury  to  the  community, 
labor  itself  included.  As  more  machinery  and  better  methods 
overcome  this  handicap  to  some  degree,  reliable  comparisons 
between  old  and  present  results  are  hard  to  make.  Most 
closed-shop  employers  with  whom  I  have  talked  think  that 
free  labor  is  one  third  more  efficient  than  union  labor;  and 
that  output  could  be  increased  15  to  25  per  cent  by  use  of 
the  Taylor  efficiency  system,  would  the  unions  permit  it, 
with  corresponding  lowering  of  prices  to  the  public. 

Economic  Effect.  As  I  have  shown  above,  Organization  of 
Labor  has  no  power  to  raise  wages.  When  my  own  little  shop 
in  Chicago  in  1903  fought  an  eleven  weeks'  strike  to  a  finish, 
and  came  out  permanently  non-union,  and  when  I  found  in 
that  union-ridden  town  an  abundant  supply  of  determinedly 
non-union  labor,  I  came  to  regard  your  great  Federation  as 
an  annoyance  rather  than  a  life-and-death  menace  to  my  busi- 
ness. Several  of  my  neighbors  felt  the  same  way.  More 
recently  the  largest  American  employer,  the  Steel  Corpora- 
tion, has  come  to  disregard  the  unions,  having  devised  a  plan 
of  its  own  more  interesting  to  its  men  than  union  benefits. 
Any  prosperous  employer  can  do  the  same ;  and  most  of  them 
probably  will  in  course  of  time.  The  world  no  longer  fears 
German  militarism,  and  trade  is  not  afraid  as  it  once  was  of 
"  labor  war."  Many  a  workingman  has  found  it  to  his  inter- 
est, as  mine  found  it  in  1903,  to  stick  to  a  job  factory  rather 
than  a  strike  factory,  so  to  speak.  Your  whole  elaborate  ma- 

[279] 


LABOR    IN   POLITICS, 

chinery  for  coercion  seems  to  me  as  obsolete  as  the  German 
"  goose-step."  It  can  do  nothing  for  labor. 

Neither  can  your  propaganda  of  hatred;  your  elaborate 
irresponsibility ;  your  cult  of  sloth.  Hatred  will  come  home 
to  roost,  and  responsibility  will  follow  it,  as  today  in  Berlin. 
Sloth  punishes  itself  from  day  to  day.  America  need  not 
worry  over  them. 

Political  Effect.  But  I  confess,  sir,  that  I  worry  somewhat 
over  your  political  Kultur ;  your  effort  to  mould  our  laws  in 
favor  of  that  strictly  limited  class,  Organized  Labor;  your 
talk  of  driving  from  the  bench  judges  that  cannot  be  scared 
into  depriving  free  men  of  their  old  and  equal  rights.  For 
your  success  would  involve  our  political  deterioration ;  would 
seep  a  German  poison  into  the  open  wells  of  our  democracy. 

Instance  the  Adamson  Law  and  its  consequences.  Even 
before  the  Government  took  over,  as  a  war  measure,  our 
railroads,  telegraph,  telephone,  commercial  marine,  and  say 
half  our  industries,  the  political  temptation  to  buy  and  pay 
for  the  labor  vote  with  special  legislation  was  too  great  for 
our  politicians  to  resist.  They  writhed  and  squirmed  and 
called  themselves  names,  but  took  their  medicine  and  passed 
the  law.  Today,  having  taken  them  over,  Government  can 
no  longer  pay  the  extra  cost  imposed  by  the  law  by  "  frying 
the  fat  out  of  the  stockholders ; "  so,  with  perfect  consistency, 
it  proceeds  to  fry  it  out  of  the  shippers,  that  is,  the  public. 
Either  way,  the  game  is  to  camouflage  a  substantial  cash 
subsidy  to  a  few  hundred  thousand  voters. 

The  question  naturally  arises,  "  After  the  railroad  men, 
what  class  comes  up  to  the  captain's  office  next;  and  how 
is  he  going  to  settle?  "  It  is  not  so  much  a  matter  of  high  or 
low  wages  for  labor ;  it  is  whether  a  particular  group  of  voters 
by  promise  or  threat  of  the  ballot,  or  the  general  strike,  or  by 
any  other  compulsion  whatever,  shall  coerce  Government  for 
its  peculiar  benefit. 

Organized  Labor  has  not  been  the  only  group  that  would 
manipulate  democracy  for  selfish  purposes;  but  your  Federa- 
tion, sir,  is  at  present  the  most  conspicuous  one.  You  maintain 
a  great  legislative  agency,  your  Washington  Headquarters, 
there  where  employers  are  few  but  politicians  are  many,  that 
compels  attention  —  as  indeed  you  doubtless  mean  that  it 

[280] 


APPENDIX 

shall  —  and  invites  imitation.  Already  in  1912-13  several 
groups  of  lovers  of  their  country  had  commenced  to  form, 
east  and  west,  with  intent  to  establish  at  Washington  a  like 
conspicuous  agency,  representing  two  or  three  million  non- 
partisan  voters,  as  a  counterbalance  to  your  labor  vote,  which 
so  cows  our  politicians.  Their  purpose  was  like  our  entry 
into  the  war  against  Germany,  —  unselfish,  disinterested,  not 
for  the  benefit  of  any  class  or  party,  but  to  make  the  country 
safe  for  democracy.  The  war  for  the  time  submerged  this 
movement,  but  it  is  now  due  to  revive  and  become  powerful. 
It  can  hardly  fail  to  line  up  against  Prussianism,  wherever 
found,  against  Union  Autocracy,  against  Government  Bureau- 
cracy, and  especially  against  partnership  between  the  two. 

Who  Benefits  by  Labor  Organizations?  As  far  as  an 
outsider  like  me  can  judge  from  the  available  evidence,  the 
laborers  of  your  Federation  are  spending  nearly  seventeen 
million  dollars  a  year,  from  which  they  derive  no  benefit 
worth  mentioning.  The  real  beneficiaries  of  this  vast  outlay 
by  these  poor  men  are  a  few  hundred  Labor  Leaders  and 
Organizers,  who  are  maintained  in  comfortable,  conspicuous, 
and  influential  positions;  of  whom  you,  sir,  are  the  chief. 
You  are  said  to  be  sincere  in  your  devotion  to  the  betterment 
of  Labor;  not  rich  yourself,  though  your  ability  might  easily 
make  you  so ;  but  preferring  the  power  and  prestige  of  leader- 
ship to  mere  cash.  Why  not  then  so  direct  your  activities 
as  really  to  accomplish  something  of  value  in  return  for  so 
much  money  and  trust;  why  not  do  some  real  good  to  those 
who  have  made  you  great?  Let  me  courteously  suggest  — 

Education  and  Cooperation.  Why  not  cut  out  your 
Kultur  of  class  hatred,  coercion,  irresponsibility,  and  sloth; 
your  plan  to  hold  up  Capital,  which  will  only  hold  back 
industry?  Why  not  dismantle  your  huge  useless  striking 
machine ;  and  spend  some  of  the  millions  it  costs  in  creating 
a  great  bureau  of  expert  investigation,  to  make  you  and  your 
constituents  as  well  aware  of  the  actualities  and  possibilities 
in  each  line  of  industry  as  are  now  the  captains  and  capitalists 
thereof  ? 

If  you  did  so,  perhaps  the  first  thing  you  would  learn  is 
that  even  if  you  kill  the  goose  that  lays  the  golden  eggs,  labor 
cannot  get  anything  worth  mentioning  out  of  Vanderbilt  and 

[281] 


LABOR   IN   POLITICS 

Rockefeller.  Your  experts  would  take  the  Census  Bulletin 
of  1917,  and  show  you  that  all  the  wealth  of  the  United 
States  came  to  187,739  millions  of  dollars;  that  there  were 
say  42  millions  of  wageworkers;  that  if  Government  owned 
it  all,  and  Rockefeller  et  al.  owned  nothing;  and  if  under 
Government  management  it  paid  5  per  cent  per  annum  as 
under  Rockefeller  —  which  is  begging  a  very  large  ques- 
tion—  then  each  wageworker  would  draw  say  $220  per 
annum  more  than  present  wages,  Rockefeller  getting  nothing. 
That  comes  to  73  cents  extra  for  each  wageworker,  no  more, 
per  diem. 

How  far  could  that  small  sum  go  to  satisfy  the  vague  as- 
pirations of  Labor  commonly  called  Social  Unrest  ?  Not  very 
far,  alas.  It  would  be  forgotten  in  a  month,  if  received ;  but 
probably  would  never  be  realized  at  all  under  government 
management. 

The  next  thing  your  experts  would  show  you  is  that  in 
all  history  it  has  never  paid  any  country,  least  of  all  its  poor 
folk,  to  plunder  its  capitalists  —  as  indeed  unhappy  Russia 
is  showing  the  world  today  —  or  to  establish  government 
monopoly  of  industry.  Also,  that  in  all  history  government 
has  lived  off  the  people,  and  not  the  people  off  the  government  ; 
and  until  human  nature  changes,  this  will  always  be  so. 

Finally,  your  experts  would  make  clear  to  you  that, 
whether  Government  owns  and  operates  everything,  or 
Rockefeller  et  al.  own  it  all  —  either  way  you  and  I  would 
fare  just  the  same  —  we  Americans  can  divide  up  amongst 
ourselves  from  year  to  year  no  more  than  we  produce,  or 
exchange  our  produce  for.  We  cannot,  even  with  the  aid 
of  the  Federation  of  Labor,  share  what  does  not  exist.  There 
is  only  one  way  for  us  to  be  better  off  next  year  than  this; 
and  that  is  to  produce  more. 

What  laboring  men  ought  to  know,  and  what  you  labor 
leaders,  with  your  greater  ability,  your  organization  and 
prestige  among  them,  are  morally  responsible  for  teaching 
them,  is  the  great  economic  fact  that  only  greater  production 
can  make  a  community  more  prosperous;  that  the  man  who 
finds  work  for  a  thousand  men  and  sells  their  output  to  ten 
thousand  others  is  worth  to  the  community  say  a  hundred 
times  as  much  as  any  one  of  his  workers,  and  justly  receives 

[282] 


APPENDIX 

an  hundredfold  reward;  and  finally,  that  the  best  thing  a 
laborer  can  do  for  himself  is  to  team  up  and  pull  with  his 
employer,  in  hearty  good  fellowship. 

You  yourself  put  it  better  than  I  can,  in  your  annual  Re- 
port so  often  quoted :  to  win  the  war,  you  say,  there  must  be 
"  continuous  full-power  production,"  which  "  depends  on  the 
morale  of  the  workers,"  which  in  turn  derives  from  "  efficient 
cooperation  "  between  "  creative  labor  power  and  controllers 
of  capital." 

Constructive  Suggestions.  But  why  stop  full-power 
production  with  the  end  of  the  war  ?  In  peace  as  in  war  every 
man's  duty  is  greatest  service  to  the  greatest  number ;  and  in 
performing  it  lies  his  chance  of  greatest  reward.  Equality 
of  opportunity  is  his  democratic  and  inalienable  right;  in- 
equality of  reward  his  democratic  and  inevitable  justice, — 
"social  justice;"  the  more  useful  the  man  the  greater  the 
reward.  You,  sir,  have  always  been  clear-headed  enough  to 
fight  State  Socialism  —  probably  you  perceive  that  it  would 
be  the  death  of  Trades-Unionism  —  and  you  recognize  as 
above  the  value  of  the  capitalists.  Why  not  then  go  on  vigor- 
ously, in  this  difficult  time  of  after-war  readjustment,  with 
that  hearty  cooperation  between  Labor  and  Capital  which 
has  paid  you  so  well  as  a  war  measure? 

These  are  times  of  high,  unselfish  purpose.  Why  not,  as 
a  constructive  program,  drop  your  creed  of  monopoly  and 
coercion ;  drop  class  hatred  and  the  odious  word  "  scab ; " 
incorporate,  become  responsible,  back  union  contracts  with 
union  funds,  so  that  they  shall  no  longer  be  mere  scraps  of 
paper;  drop  sloth,  and  guarantee  the  work  of  union  men; 
ordain  that  union  committees  shall  regularly  cooperate  with 
employers  to  determine  wages,  hours,  pace,  and  conditions  for 
continuous  full-power  production,  paying  each  man  according 
to  work  done ;  unionize  locally  by  shops  instead  of  nationally 
by  trades,  so  as  to  limit  each  laborer's  and  employer's  troubles 
to  his  own  job,  instead  of  tangling  him  uselessly  in  those  of  a 
thousand  others;  let  every  shop  be  "open,"  and  depend  on 
the  union  contract  and  standards  of  work  and  guarantee  to 
secure  preference  for  the  union  man  ? 

I  think,  sir,  that  employers  would  welcome  such  coopera- 
tion as  this  with  open  arms  and  pocketbooks;  that  not  only 

[283] 


LABOR    IN   POLITICS 

Labor  but  the  entire  community  would  fare  better  than  ever 
before ;  and  that  the  Labor  Leaders  whose  breadth  and  honesty 
of  purpose  should  culminate  in  such  businesslike  fashion 
would  deserve  and  enjoy  such  standing,  and  esteem  among  all 
their  fellow  citizens  as  they  can  never  hope  for  while  they 
profess  and  practice  Prussianism. 

Conclusion.  On  the  other  hand  let  me  warn  you  against 
the  dangers  of  the  political  course  you  seem  to  be  pursuing. 
As  Lincoln  said,  "  You  cannot  fool  all  the  people  all  the 
time."  In  our  democracy  the  ballot  is  every  man's  legitimate 
and  peaceful  weapon  against  class  privilege  of  every  nature; 
it  is  not  his  club  for  coercion  of  government,  legislature,  or 
judiciary,  into  creation  of  class-privilege.  Should  Organized 
Labor  rouse  the  ballot  against  itself  —  should  the  issue  ever 
be  made  up  and  fought  squarely,  American  fashion  —  do  you 
not  think  that  the  People  against  Organized  Labor,  the  U.  S. 
against  the  Unions,  say  nine  to  one,  will  be  intelligent  enough, 
and  just  enough,  to  protect  the  nine  against  the  one?  Why 
not  take  heed,  sir,  to  the  disasters  that  befell  Kaiserism  on  the 
one  hand,  and  Bolshevism  on  the  other? 

Respectfully  yours, 

CHAS.  NORMAN  FAY. 
P.  S.    Nov.  i^th. 

Since  the  foregoing  was  penned  comes  your  Laredo  speech 
of  yesterday,  which  rather  discourages  my  appeal  to  broad 
labor-leadership.  You  say  that  Organized  Labor  made  "  sac- 
rifices," and  gained  "  advantages  "  not  to  be  taken  away;  that 
it  will  resist  all  attempt  to  force  down  wages  and  lengthen 
hours. 

Now,  the  sacrifices  consisted  in  working  for  the  shortest 
hours  and  longest  wages  ever  known;  paid  not  out  of  value 
produced,  but  out  of  Liberty  Loans  and  colossal  taxation. 
No  very  great  sacrifice,  that!  Yet  you  serve  notice  that  ad- 
vantage, and  not  patriotism,  was  what  you  backed  your  coun- 
try for ;  and  that  Labor  intends  to  wring  out  of  trade  in  peace 
what  it  wrung  out  of  taxes  in  war! 

Well,  to  use  two  caustic  old  farm  phrases,  organized  Labor 
must  "  skin  its  own  —  polecats,"  and  learn  to  its  sorrow, 
some  time,  that  it  "  cannot  milk  a  dry  cow." 

[284] 


UNIVERSITY  f)F  cm ITUCDM 


f*  A  I    I  r-/"»  r\ 


F3 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


DEC  13 


Scries  '.MS'.' 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A     000  721  272     3 


583 


